Or --- I'm not a racist. Nah --- that can't be! It's on the InterNet, so it must be true.



*"Anybody who wears a read sweater is an idiot"

"I have never worn a red sweater and I resent being
called an idiot!"

Well said Mr. Byrne....now all the fanboys are gonna say "Mr.Byrne called us stupids"!

Now, i think...they have the "Drama Queen" sindrome!

I am convinced that in some sad, stupid way, all of the BYRNE detractors are, in their hearts of hearts, JEALOUS of JB and his position in the industry and, most importantly, of his TALENT.

When you are extraordinarily good at what you do, people get jealous...way jealous...especially when you remain consistent and constant in your work.

It is a shame, though, that these people are destroying the hobby and industry they so profess to love by supporting books that are constantly produced late (because the creators are "growing roses); are totally into the "gimmicks" offered up as "new and exciting" ideas proposed by many companies; support talent that in NO WAY are professional in either their behavior or work ethic; and set out to destroy the careers and reputations of those people whose work they do not like.

What upsets me, probably even more, is that the public perception of a "comic book fan" is EXACTLY what these basement dwellers and microphalics demonstrate each and every time they post to an InterNet message board, and this is done at the expense of all of us who read comics and THINK and have LIVES and so forth and so on.  I mean, I have civilian friends who, to this day, still believe that ALL comic book fans, and even professionals, are EXACTLY like "Comic Book Guy" on the SIMPSONS.  (One friend, when I brought her to the Chicago Comicon a few years back, even remarked how "normal" many of the creators looked/acted...especially considering their "fans"...).

But, at the end of the day, if these idiots destory what remains of the comic book industry and while they are pissing on the graves of what was once a fun, vibrant, creative outlet/industry/hobby, while they do that with GLEE, I hope that the emptiness that is their lives consumes them and their ilk and that a great hell is thrust upon them and they spend what remains of their lives in pain, suffering and agony.

May a SPECTRE like wrath haunt them all the days of their shallow, empty, hallow lives!

MPH

Speak for yourself, Joe.

MPH

All this because of: 

1) A drawing that Byrne probably didn't do - (he penciled the cover, yet the drawing is in ink, it's not his style, etc and so on...)

2) A remark that is in line with what Malcolm X said - that it's a sad commentary when people destroy thier natural beauty to look like their oppressors.

You're right, though - the people making these outrageous claims should try learning a thing or two about racism before tossing that word around. 

Not that they really believe it, I'm sure, it's just a word they use in their sad little campaigns....

As a black fan of JBs for more than 20+ years, I hearby denounce any claims that John Byrne is a racist.  I make this statement with full knowledge of real racism having been born and raised in the deep, deep, South (where one year the big controversy was an integrated prom In the 1990s).  Now move along, nothing to see here. 

Brian

JB, your problem with stupid "fans" and accusations of racism reminds me of the attempts to ban HUCKLEBERRY FINN because of the use of the word "nigger."

Russell Baker in the NYTimes back in 1982 wrote:

QUOTE: The people they [Huck and Jim] encounter are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is black Jim, the runaway slave. ''Nigger Jim,'' as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.

The people who want to label Mark Twain a racist obviously are too stupid to understand what they (seem to) read. It's apparent that the people out to get you, JB, are just as stupid in the same way.

The current charges of racism at JB from his detractors stem from, basically, two things: The comments he made on Latinas dying their hair blonde, and a silly drawing in the UPC box on the original art for an "Uncanny X-Men" cover from nearly 30 years ago.

These pathetic people that constantly seek to demonize and rag on about JB all the friggin time were just looking for anything they could find to tar and feather him, and took those two things above out of context and ran with them.

One board on the net is practically the Anti-Byrne Forum, they post so much about JB, and always negatively. Sad, really.

I don't have anything to add to the subject of trolls and the nonsense that has been going on in different forums.  No matter what is written to try and diffuse it, it will not be deterred.  However, I'd like to go on record as saying that absolutely no comicbook professional contributes to his fanbase on the internet as much as JB.  There is nobody out there who offers the sheer volume of pencil scans, daily doodles, commissions and ideas as the man who owns this site-- and all for FREE.  Ask JB any question about his process, about tips for how he does a certain thing, about the history of the industry or any other topic and he gives you the straight dope.  If that isn't the definition of a man who cares about his profession and the people who have been his fans, then I don't know what is.

I for one appreciate the hell out of it.

Well...i'm waiting for the fanboys to come prowl here i their defense of the "red sweater syndrome...

I'm often reminded that knowing that a word exists doesn't mean the user has any idea what the word means or how to use it correctly. Many truly stupid people try to sound smart by using words they've heard (or read) with barely any concept of their definition.

Which is why, JB, it doesn't surprise me that some idiot (and I use that word knowing what it means) accuses you of making "racist diatribes" in your work. They don't know what the words mean. Devoid of intent, they're also devoid of power; it's the verbal equivalent of chimpanzees flinging dung. Take heart that those of us who are fans pretty much get what you intend (and ask you directly if we don't).

I'll take John Byrne's decades long respectful treatment of characters of Color over baseless accusations of his racism any day.

Lot of fans today have an imaginary John Byrne in their mind.

There are the anti-Byrnes (called too the Byrne bashers) and there's the people who believe them.

Racism is certainly one of the most ridiculous amongst the defaults they atribute to you.

Maybe you're sometime not very careful in the way you say some things, but to call it racism, one have to:

1) Ignore the comics you co-plot, draw or wrote all along the years (yes Iron Fist and Misty come to mind, so does Wyatt Wingfoot/She Hulk and many other characters)

2) want to find racism in what you say, no matter what was your intention when you said or wrote on-line a sentence maybe not very politicly correct, but not racist either.

OUT OF TOPIC: By the way I was wondering: Have the first name of Misty Knight a link with Erroll Garner's Jazz Standard "Misty"? Or maybe Clint Eastwood's movie "Play Misty For Me" in wich a woman ask every night to a DJ this music?

Just curious.

Robert, why should any comic creator have to do all of those things just to get a fair shake?  And even if he did, I seriously doubt it would put an end to all of the bad Byrne stories.

Oh, and I've always thought that JB and Alan Davis were among the few artists who draw Black comic book characters well.  Many are "hit or miss" with their depictions, and some (like Eduardo Rizzo) make them look downright demonic.

Who cares if there's bad press? It's coming from the internet, it's shite anyway. If someone wants to prove Byrne a racist, then talk to anyone he's had a close working relationship with in his two-plus decades in the industry. I don't anyone will be able to dig up an instance where John Byrne is by any definition a racist. And anyone can be made out a "racist". I think black culture sucks right now. What happened to the music? What happened to the look? Where are the genuis icons? Where are the voices? But I'm racist because I hate the current music, the look, the "icons". Don't worry, I hate the white culture too. In fact, I hate everybody everywhere.

Except here. And all pretty ladies. And, eh, old kung fu masters. But everybody else can go to hell!

edited because I suck

Adult comic book fans don't seem to be the most intelligent, well-rounded of lads and lassies. I include myself in that group.

I dunno dude. I'm getting pretty round. Pear shaped anyway.

Adult comic book fans don't seem to be the most intelligent, well-rounded of lads and lassies. I include myself in that group.

I'm glad you spoke for yourself there Joe, but I don't know how true that is of alla dult comic book fans.  Perhaps we could, as Darragh has done, distinguished readers from fans.  I don't know how much parsing is needed but that's a bit of a generalization.  We talk comics here because it's a comics forum, occasuinally we branch off but there's a lot of intelligence on this board and amongst my friends. 

As for JB being racist, pshaw.  These are probably the same who say he's misogynist.  A professor of mine in college said, "Stay away from -isms."  That can have a few meanings but it's true.

JB is one of the only artists who doesn't need to draw diagonal lines to show that a character is African-American.  (Another cartoonist who excels at this is Alison Bechdel, author of the new graphic novel "Fun Home" and "Dykes to Watch Out For")  Bechdel said she didn't want to do those lines like she saw Franklin in Charlie Brown having.

And George, JB isn't the Pope;  I don't think he needs a goodwill tour.  Addressing these issues and being honest on this board, as he is doing, is great.  Let those who've been accusing him come HERE and read.

I agree, Joe.

You included.

Other boards, not so much.  Not all other boards.  But many.

It's not just comic message boards - I post sometimes on the Geldof board, and they get a regular parade of folk coming through complaining about how much Geldof has screwed the Africans or whatever... likewise, on the David Lynch board, he limited it to just popping into chat, giving a daily filmed message and weather report, and having questions in and answering them on camera, a few at a time.  Worked great.  Then, recently, he set up a mesage board type thing - mainly to discuss his new love of conspiricy theories - he doesn't even post on it - he just says the subject in his daily film, and leaves it open to debate on the msg board, but... it was like 3 days in before it was overrun with "trolls".

The internet is the best friend to a whole world of sad lonely people.

JB's correct - people in general love to be offended.

Many people need a focal point for their discontent.  Otherwise, they'd have to accept responsibility for their choices and where those choices have brought them.  It's much easier to be discontent than to do the real work of creating a fulfilling life. 

For the powerless, and frightened (both self-imposed ways of being), striking out in anonymous condescension is the only way to feel powerful and brave.

I'll never understand why people care the more for the person than for his work. Seriously, is he an artist/writer? So, talk about his works! Aw, well, I was forgetting that most of the Byrne bashers don't read his comics.

Last year I had an oral test about this at the University... And used JB as an example (this means that my favorite author had a role in my successful test; heh).

It seems that the internet has allowed many people to unleash their 'inner vandal'. Some sad folk just cannot stop their brainless compulsion to try and wreck things...anonymously, of course. The Kevin Dunstocks of the world are attracted to the facelessness of the internet...sorry, interweb...as they feel they can behave like idiots with total impunity.

Most of this shit isn't even from people who really care. They think they care but it's all matter of very artificial importance to them. They will routinely swallow horses and gag on fliesall the day long.

They are essentially a bunch of thirty year old kids with a "comics:love 'em or leave 'em" attitude who hate seeing their current favorite whack rag being criticized. As a bonus they are always on the lookout for something quasi familiar to snark on so they play a little game...They come on this forum, look for something that they don't approve of, drag it back to the nest(usually CBR or Newsarama) and proceed to publicize it as widely as they can with their freebie accounts. Then they attach the usual "brilliant" commentary.

John Byrne: Total douche or raving tool?

John Byrne Fascist backward idiot or filthy gibbering imbecile?

Blah blah blah.

And if you read their post histories you often find out that in the thick of various arguments they are no stranger to being rude, upset, or combatitive themselves. But what is always a mountain coming from Mr. Byrne is a mere molehill when it is traced back to them. Mr. Byrne is according to their "logic" a celebrity and therefore must be a saint at all times. Especially when the rats come swarming out of the sewer to try and piss on him because...well...the sewer gets boring after a while...

It was the first time in my career up to that point that I had been told a character had to be a particular race in order to boost sales!

Saddest part of all this, perhaps, is the so-called "professionals" I have seen engage in this kind of tripe. Firing off as "shot" at me that is utterly unconnected to anything else they are saying or writing -- just something "witty" tossed in to show the fans how "kewl" said "pro" is. How sad is it when someone working in the industry needs to dis me in order to get "cred" with the "fans"?

Love the 90's!

LOL, LOL & re-LOL

or maybe should I rather cry?

I wouldn't even give it another second's thought, JB...

Prejudiced? Never ever picked up that at all...it makes me laugh- I'd go so far as to say that in a lot of climes, you'd even be considered a liberal (not that there's anything wrong with being liberal)..

I think it almost impossible to associate such a creative soul as yours with any forms of limited thinking, nor would you I'm sure want to be.

I've been a member for a coupl'a years now and I've gotta say that I've never picked up anything but respect for all individuals posting here- their opinions, etc- especially from JB and also from all group members

Something happened to England after I left. The people who had fought thru the Blitz, survied Dunkirk, produced Shakespeare, carved an empire upon which the sun never set --- morphed into a nation of nihilistic whiners. "Fascist England", a term that could be coined only by someone who had never personally experienced Fascism.

---

I bristled at everyone of my nationality being described a nihilistic whiner . At which point we should all sing the song from Avenue Q.

hi Glen...well, I'll admit that I don't read every single thread, and don't know what was the specific thread or statement that lead to the posting of the origination of THIS thread in the first place- maybe I was thinking about personal prejudices ONLY- the big ones- race, religion, sexual orientation only. In those areas, I don't recall any big putdown examples...e.g..using deragatory lang in reference to gays...

I will say, yes, I've heard strong disagreement with views in many areas Glenn, so..can't argue with you there

uuhh...well...on the other hand...

I CAN remember one example of a discussion that I brought up a while ago that ended...kinda ugly...

One thing that IS ..unfair I admit...the GANGING UP up that can sometimes happen towards one point of view by a seeming multitude...but..wat can I say?
We happen to be in a country where EVERYONE entitled to an opinion...even if they sometimes seem to be a Group effort, and not from a thoughtful mind...or any thinking put into the response...(Me Too...Me Too...)

This is a mistake which comes up often on this board and elsewhere. "Shouldn't you wait to see the movie before you form an opinion?" No -- if there is enough factual information available to form an opinion without seeing it. (Interestingly enough, I have hardly ever seen this phrase invoked when someone praises a movie they have not seen. "This looks great!" is exempt, apparently, from the same "rule" that governs "this looks bad".)

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree with that definition completely. 

JB: "All men, regardless of their personal orientation sexually, should be Pro-Choice. It is, after all, none of our business what a woman does with her body.

That's almost exactly what I've told anyone who asks me about my opinion on abortions. 

And to stay on topic, I've never read a JB comic book and thought that he was a racist.  I've run into my fair share of racists in Missouri over the last three decades, so I have an informed idea of what racism is.  Plus, I've read literally dozens (if not hundreds) of JB comics over the same time span, so I feel equally informed there, too.

I tend to steer clear of boards where folks don't (or won't) use their real names.  Yeah, that's fairly limiting, but when I did look at them, I found myself feeling like I'd wasted my time. 

Joe

Glenn Brown wrote: People get blasted here for offering differing opinions/viewpoints all of the time.

As they do in daily conversation.  I can't tell you the number of times I've been blasted, or blasted someone, in a heated conversation about politics and religion sitting at my favorite pub, enjoying a beer.  Why it should be any different here is beyond me.  I think it goes to a "herd mentality" that some associate with this board.  Sure, we're all gathered here because we like the work of one man, but I hardly think that means that there is an overriding "herd mentality" where every subject is concerned.  I know I've disagreed with JB on a number of occasions regarding Hollywood, and guess what?  He and I e-mail each other on a regular basis and I'm a mod on his board.  Like I've said in numerous threads, it's not that you disagree with someone here, it's how you choose to disagree with them that matters. 

John Byrne wrote: Everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion.

Can I have an AMEN? 

Can we make the understanding of the above statement a requirement of anyone that posts on the net?

Nah.  Didn't think so.  Sad, really, how many debates I've been in where the person I'm debating with has nary a leg to stand on with regard to fact, and, as a last gasp, will toss out the "I'm entitled to my opinion.  No opinion is wrong" card. Sorry, but opinions can be wrong.  They're wrong all the time.  Just because you hold one, especially an uninformed one, doesn't mean that you are automatically excluded from seeking out the truth.

InterNet cowards are among the lowest of the species. Grow some f***ing BALLS, you losers!

Monster? Rascist? I wouldn't throw those accusations around but I would say that a lot of people I know are put off Byrne the creative because of what they read of Byrne the person on this site. Posts you've made on this site have turned up in news items in comics press and web-sites and perhaps a lot of people have been put off by what they read in those articles. Skewed presentation from the reporters? Maybe but then when they come to this site and look around what they see isn't necesarily going to counter the image.

I first started coming to this site after one of the "Look at what John Byrne said!" dustups (I don't remember which one at this point).  Whatever was shown on the other website just screamed out-of context, to me at least, and I wanted to see what the whole story was.  To the best of my memory, it was out-of context, and the whole post was not nearly as horrible as people on the other site were making it out to be.  In the time I have spent here, mostly lurking, I have never gotten the impression that you are a racist, or even an ogre. 

However, and I say the following with as much respect as possible, you do come across as a bit of a jerk sometimes.  I believe what the people who know you personally have posted.  I have no doubt that, in person, you are pleasant, funny, whatever.  But I'm guessing that your sense of humor doesn't always translate well to posts on a message board. 

You also have a tendency to be insulting.  I've never personally felt insulted by you, but then again, we haven't really had any contact.  But if I had a nickel for every time you have called someone who disagrees with you an idiot, or an asshole, or some other variation on the theme, I would have quite a nice pile of nickels right now.

Anyone who wandered into this board with negative press about you already in mind would not find those images negated if they look at the wrong threads.  The "Bad Byrne Stories" are hardly your fault.  I agree with the poster above who attributed many of them to jealousy.  But the image you put out of yourself on this board is all on you.  And if you choose to insult, then it is poor form, in my view, to wonder "Why do people think I'm a nasty SOB?".  And I say this as someone who can be a nasty SOB. 

I don't call people idiots or assholes until they have given their absolute best effort to proving the appelation to be accurate.

David, in all fairness to Byrne, "Big Tex" Dave Farabee and he have a long history of interacting on the internet, so what looks to the casual observer as an insult "early" in the debate, was, in fact, very very late in the debate.

If that's the bloke from the Lost Girls thread then I stand corrected. You can see why people end up thinking John is a jerk though from reading the thread.

Oh, I understand.   Yes, that's the same guy.  I'm not going to say Dave is a troublemaker, but considering how many years they've been interacting on various message boards, I'd say there's a history and context.

I do hear your point - in a perfect world, Byrne would reply to everything with a rosy smile and a warm handshake... but that's not going to happen.  Too blunt sometimes?  Well, from certain points of view.   Here's the key factor - keep in mind that more often than not, the people who are spreading the "outrage" about whatever it is that Byrne has done are people who regularly spread "outrage" about Byrne, and thus, have an agneda which colors their views on the situation.  It's no surprise that you and others who read the various gossip columns and anti-Byrne boards are only shown the quotes in a light that make Byrne out to be the asshole, you know?* 

If you do the slightest ammount of digging, you find the same few names being "outraged" over and over. 

Any kook can show you just enough evidence that the moon landing was faked.  But when he also tells you that Elvis is alive, well, and working at a 7-11 in Atlanta, and so on, you start to smell a rat, and as I say, with the most minimal investigative work, you can discover the sick stalkerish obsessions of these few disturbed individuals.

*Not calling Dave F an asshole, here.  The gossip columnists, on the other hand...

QUOTE: ...a long history of interacting on the internet

You make it sound so tawdry, Mike.

I've posted casually on Byrne's board going back maybe a year or two into the days of the Magnus board. I've agreed with his points quite often, even if I don't always post to say, "Right on," and argued vehemently on a few issues with which I disagree with him. Personally, I don't think I've crossed the line into "damn the facts, damn common sense" territory, but if the host of the board thinks I have (and yeah, I recognize that he didn't call me out specifically in this thread)...hey, it's his world, I just find enough to enjoy here to keep posting in it.

That said, I've never thought of myself as having any "history" with JB. I'm a poster on his board who disagrees with him sometimes. "History" makes it all sound so melodramatic, and as I near a thousand posts, I want to say you could probably look back through 'em all and you'd find only disagreements - not the "troublemaking" you seem to be implying but tiptoeing around.

Well, that's fair, too, Dave, but it's not like you're a stranger, and it's not like you've never disagreed with him.

I guess the way I see it is that it wasn't worth all the "outrage" when he said it to you - it was a shrug inducing incident at best.  There are other people, even regulars here, where it would be a more odious crime, but it was, at best, a "meh" moment.

But that's easy for me to say - I'm not the guy he called an asshole... so, let's put the shoe on the other foot - since you, like me, have been around going back to at least the Magnus board days, I think we can agree that there are things that Byrne is pretty clear on, and it's pretty clear what he likes, doesn't like, etc.

Thus, you have the complete fredom to bring up said topics (one notes, despite rumors to the contrary, you are not banned, and you are allowed to think differently), but you are also expected to face the consequences of your actions.

Which, in this case, was that you were called an asshole.  

I keep coming back to this in most discussions about Byrne's on-line behavior, but... let's say I know you don't like eating meat.  Let's say you invite me over to your house.  Let's say I start going on and on about how savory meat is.  Let's say we've had this song and dance before....

Can you look me in the eye and say that you'd smile, hug me, shake my hand, buy me a car, fall to your knees and fellate me?

No, I'd pretty much be expecting to be called an asshole at that point.

I'm not saying you're an asshole, Dave.  I've always gotten along with you... but you're certainly not some innocent victim here.

I often wonder where the outrage is when our own Joe Zhang is called an asshole all over the internet, including on this very board.  I also wonder why, when charges of racism are tossed at Byrne, people "forget" the infamous con flyer that went around whereby the "artist" used some radom Asian guy as Joe.  Our Joe Zhang didn't even rate a real face.  He's just some Asian guy. 

The hypocracy of Byrne's detractors is sickening.

smell roses in spain, you lover

QUOTE: ...but likewise, are you concerned with the fact that you've been made a martyr all over the interweb?

I have to confess: I'm mostly just bemused. Seems like it's the best way for my brain to process the surreality of my name being splashed over message boards everywhere alongside a dismissal from one of the creators most responsible for me getting into comics.

Are the quotes being taken out of context? Yeah, a bit, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't rush out to try to put out the brushfires that erupted when I was called an asshole! It just seems a bit much to expect, y'know? Just 'cause I wasn't particularly mortified by it doesn't mean I see myself as a frontline fighter in defending it.

Honestly, I try to avoid internet drama, so my role in this strange, mildy amusing internet meme is to ignore it and let it pass into last week's news.

"I don't call people idiots or assholes until they have given their absolute best effort to proving the appelation to be accurate."

I didn't say that you didn't.  I don't doubt that you have seen every instance as being justified.  My point was that the casual reader probably won't see it that way. 

I like a good argument as much as the next person, and I understand how tempers can flare, and things can be said that are uncalled for. But if you can look at some of your posts objectively, as someone without an awareness of any history between you and the other poster, and tell me that you don't come off as a bit harsh, than I honestly don't know what else to say. 

In my book, that person is an asshole, first class.

"Moore produces a pornographic comic using characters from beloved children's books, none of which were created or owned by him, one of which is owned by a Charity Children's Hospital that is taking legal measures to protect their property. "

I guess I don't understand where the angst is coming from.  Is it because Moore is using beloved characters or that children might mistakenly get hold of the story(s) in question or that he's used copyrighted characters without permission?

In fact, I don't have the same impression of the story itself as others seem to.  I'm not going to buy the book, but that's because it's $75 and that's way more than I'd spend on anything that I was just curious about.  But the premise and description offered in Previews was more along the lines of a coming of age tale of these characters, not 12 year old girls being abused. 

Also, didn't Moore create this 16 years ago?  If the copyright angle is the problem for you, wouldn't the publishers be more at fault than Moore, at this time, for reproducing it?

My knowledge of these fictional characters is limited to what Disney put into cartoon form so I admit that my fondness for them isn't very deep.  To me, Moore is(was) just someone experimenting with and expanding the character beyond it's original form.  Moore's story, good or bad, wouldn't change my impression or feeling of the characters as originally written.

Ive been posting here for over sixteen months. Ive found John Byrne to be very helpful about answering any questions I have and being very nice while doing it. In fact, I've yet to have one bad experience dealing with a comicbook creator online.

Now here is something I dont get. Why would somebody continually read about or deal with a creator they seem to hate. I mean I really dislike Brian Bendis, thats why I stay away from his forums and website. It seems like some these guys have a crush or something.

Okay, I guess it's going to be one of those "discussions".  I don't know anything about the copyright laws that may or may not be infringed in this case.  The book is being solicited and already published so I'm led to believe that it might be legal.  Not absolutely.  Not positively.  But at least possibly. 

I didn't see the Newsarama link so I don't really know the context of what was going on.  I haven't read the actual story so I don't know if it's over the line or not.  I do know there is plenty of Manga and European titles that skirt and cross the lines of consentual age(s) so I have to assume that it's the particular characters that is causing the problem in this particular case.

No, I wouldn't get it for a variety of reasons that I stated before.  In your example, I'm sure that Marvel wouldn't allow anything Spider-Man related to be published, much less solicited with Previews.  Second, you're implying that the story in question is about a sexual deviant/predator/criminal.  I don't know that that's what the story is actually about. 

Is it possible that the story may have been handled in a mature way?  Aren't some of Shakespear's works about incest, young love, etc.?  Not to say that Moore is comparable to any literary greats but I feel like his story is being judged for the wrong reasons.  No, pedophilia shouldn't be encouraged or supported but I haven't seen the information that concludes this is what his story is about.  I'm assuming that's what all the anger and opposition is based upon. 

Has anyone out there actually read the story or at least know a little more about it?  I mean, I don't even know what age the characters are in the book.  Are they 12?  That's obviously(I think) a little too young to be portraying sexual situations but what if they're 15?  Isn't that when most kids start to become curious?  Or is that even the issue?  Joe and Darren both expressed their reasons and they were different.  One was naked "kids" and the other was copyright infringement.

I don't think JB is a racist at all. He is more of a realist. One of the times that he opened my eyes to just how real he could be was in JBNM #6. Bremmer suggested to Hilltop that maybe they should open up the test subjects to Negros "because they breed like rabbits". To which Hilltop replied that he was not going to give such power to "monkeys" i realized that from the historical perspective this conversation took place in, it could have been a realistic converstion between a scientist and Hilltop whose racism just added more to his villany.

The Ormond Street Hospital disagrees -- and so do various governments around the world, all of whom have extended their ownership of the copyright far beyond the death of the original author. Unless Moore wants to say a Children's Charity Hospital has no right to raise money from the licensing of "Peter Pan", I see no point in his pornography. And if that is his point, he is wrong.

Going back to the original subject of this thread -- can we imagine how these same people who leap to defend Moore's savaging of properties not his own would have spun things had I been the author of "Lost Girls"? Pedophilia would most certainly have been added to my list of sins.

How many Lost Girls threads do we need? Let's talk about religion or something.

IMP.

I'm far from a copyright lawyer, but the only fairly definitive thing I could find regarding Peter Pan seems to be that the Hospital gets royalties from the book and play.

And I know even less how a story about, in Neil Gaiman's words "three women whose adventures in girlhood may have inspired respectively, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Peter Pan and Wendy, and The Wizard of Oz" is judged any way.

All men, regardless of their personal orientation sexually, should be Pro-Choice. It is, after all, none of our business what a woman does with her body.

Makes sense as long as an unborn child is considered a body part. Also helps fathers avoid responsibility for the body part.

Where's my hard hat?

IMP.

We're getting into hypotheticals here. You say you'd have been labelled a peadophile, I say if you'd written exactly the same story I wouldn't have labelled you that.

If it's all about context then the two quotes I most often see attributed to John Byrne is 'She shouldn't be playing Sue Storm because hispanics with blonde hair look like hookers' and equating the use of the word 'nigger' with mis-use of speech bubble. I'm not talking about using 'nigger' in a historic context or as a piece of dialgogue. The story reported in comics press was equating 'nigger' and 'speech bubble'. They are two of the things that people refer to on message boards.

Just raising a few points as the thread is presumable here for that reason.

Read up on the history of abortion in America, too, if you really want your eyes opened.

A man's responsibility to his child, unborn or not, supercedes his relationship with the mother, but the ultimate responsibility to give birth to the child is a god-given genetic right of the mother. As a woman, she's the only way life enters the world, whereas with men we provide fertilizer to initiate a genetic sequence. Her life, every part of her, every emotional facet, will be locked into the birth of the child. And so much more. Unable to understand this bond, men should not presume to interfere. If you've had the sex and you didn't work to prevent the pregnancy, it's out of a man's hands. He can leave the woman, but he must provide financially for the child. There should never be an instant where a man is forced by law to support his child, if the woman chooses to have it. If she's heinous, then you shouldn't have had sex with a heinous human being.

I think leaving the choice to women in investing a large portion of their lives to birthing and raising children is definitive. The world's too chock full of idiots and evil and someone has to check that; better it be the vessel through which life flows than some aging religious fanatic or PC touchy feely social worker. We're being overrun with human beings and still people want to save every unwanted child, to give them a chance, to provide the world with the next Bach or Van Gogh.

I'm here to tell you, personally, I believe we've probably seen the last Bachs and Van Goghs. So I wouldn't worry much about the child born to some chicken-fry who's life is over before it can even begin. Better not to exist than to exist to remind us how cruel the world is that these unborn children never had a chance to begin with.

I woke up this morning thinking about this thread. Not being a fan of current comics, (out of the loop for many years), I'm very bothered and disgusted that the so-called fan community has said such cruel things about Byrne over the years. I'm really at a loss, To me JB is a man of strong opinions, and an artist who is fiercely passionate about the artform he has dedicated his life to. But nothing more, as in, nothing negative. Even when I stumbled upon his various columns here and there thru the years I simply thought, "this is a man of strongly held convictions." These allegations of racism, etc. are beyond me. I just don't see it. I have two conclusions:

There are a lot of mean-spirited, small-minded bastards out there who like to piss all over legitimate artists. Perhaps, as mentioned before, it stems from jealously. Who cares. Regardless, I've seen it happen to all kinds of artists who have integrity and care deeply for the work they produce. I've seen it happen many times to artists I admire: Bono of U2, Bruce Springsteen, and, unfortunately, John Byrne, to name just a few.

 I pay these nay-saying bastards no mind, or at least, I try, Still, this kind of venom gets under my skin. I feel for the artists who have to be subjected to this kind of idiotic vitriol. They deserve better, but this world is filled with assholes, and now, with the Internet, they have an even larger voice.

Secondly, there has been a great loss of critical thinking in this country. Objective thinking has all but disappeared. So many "fans" and critics seem to be just reactionaries, flying by the seat of their pants, launching their ill-considered opinions without any regard to accuracy or truth or the feelings of the artists they so unfairly malign. It's a damned shame.

As JB has said, the body of work is there, the evidence is there. Damn the haters, their words hold no water with me. I have marginalized them, or ignored them entirely. I know I cannot change their minds, and I won't even try. I hope Mr. Byrne will carry on regardless, head held high. They are many of us out here who know the truth. And, I, for one, will champion this man's work, even though the work really speaks for itself.

Excuse the rant. As I said, I woke up thinking about this, and had to get it off my chest. Thanks.

I have yet to form a concrete opinion about Mr Byrne.  I'll admit to first coming here from a thread on another forum that was about his apparent dislike for Alan Moore.

So far the only time I've seen him post something that I thought was a bit out of line was calling someone an asshole just for saying they ordered Lost Girls, but that's already been discussed in this thread.

The only things that I have come to notice are that he seems to dislike most of Alan Moore's work, but does not comment on the man himself.  He even refrains from lambasting the person when arguing against Lost Girls, just sticking to his dislike for what he knows of that piece of work.  Which seems to be more than people on other forums have managed.

Finally, he could be a racist, a wife beater, a dog kicker, dictator of an impoverished African nation, but that doesn't change the quality of his work.  And to be honest, as long as his work is up to scratch, does it matter what kind of man he is? 

I'm going to make a point here that could be considered contorversial:  Think in terms of Gary Glitter.  Yes, he's a paedophile and a creep, but My Gang is still a stonking good song.  What you have since found out about the singer doesn't change that.  (I am NOT comparing Mr Byrne to that piece of filth, but merely that what type of person the artist is does not have to change how you view the art).

QUOTE: Actually Dave was quite upset, bringing up the matter again a day later. I don't blame him. On the other hand, I don't read pedophile comic books.

What are you talking about, Joe? Where did I bring it up again? Where was I "upset"?

Chad Carter:  I'm here to tell you, personally, I believe we've probably seen the last Bachs and Van Goghs. So I wouldn't worry much about the child born to some chicken-fry who's life is over before it can even begin. Better not to exist than to exist to remind us how cruel the world is that these unborn children never had a chance to begin with.

What's a "chicken-fry"?  Is that a reference to people who work in the fast food industry?  Or some kind of diagonal reference to the old "black people like fried chicken" chestnut?  I don't get it.

You honestly believe that the human race has seen its last genius?  Its last visionary?  That's pretty sad.  Stop watching reality TV and look around once in a while.  Are you acquainted with no talented or gifted people? 

I'm here to tell you, personally, that you posted some severely idiotic ideas, there.

(And before anyone asks, I am ardently pro-choice.)

So we are back on this again?

Oy.

For my own part, I'm not interested in continuing to debate LOST GIRLS until I've read it. I know the school that says it's inherently damnable; I disagree, for all the reasons I posted in the previous LOST GIRLS thread:

http://tinyurl.com/od8df - http://tinyurl.com/od8df  (the relevant post being about 2/3rds down the page)

Beyond that, I'd like to have read the thing before I throw away more hours of my life discussing it. All I'm seeing are folks repeating their objection, and that seems like a waste of time.

A lot of these guys love the attention basically. Whether it's John Byrne or Peter David or any creator, they love the acknowledgement. Twenty years ago, no one would print their letters and certainly wouldn't respond to them, but the Internet makes it easier for people to puff up their chests at the local comic book shop and say, "I gave what for to (Insert Creator Here)." And the fact that they're banned from the site makes them even happier. They've been recognized, validated. Take it to another level: What has more impact for someone with no life? "I'm not going to see the new Bruce Willis movie because it's not really my thing" or "I'm not going to see the new Bruce Willis movie because he's a jerk. He personally insulted me and I know for a fact he's a sexist."

I think it's great that the Internet allows this degree of interaction with creators. However, if it ever gets to the point that you can't enjoy someone's work because of their personality or some presumed offense, then you need to step back. You're making a big mistake.

I heard someone say they weren't going to buy any more books by a certain creator because of the political beliefs he expressed on his board. I pointed out that this creator probably still held those beliefs back when this person was reading and enjoying his work. I said, "If Jack Kirby or Stan Lee or Steve Ditko had message boards, they would inevitably say something to piss someone off unless it was all so perfectly PR polished as to not really be that authentic anyway. Would you really give up great comics because of this?" This guy didn't really have  a response to that.

QUOTE: I have really mixed feeling about reading a long, well-thought-out justification for said product.

Have you read any of the reviews or overviews of LOST GIRLS? I have, and none of them make it sound like the book's intended to be a justification for masturbation - more of an exploration of all the mysteries of sex. From Neil Gaiman's review:

It is one of the tropes of pure pornography that events are without consequence. No babies, no STDs, no trauma, no memories best left unexamined. Lost Girls, however, is all about consequences. It's also about more things than sex – war, music, love, lust, repression and time, to pick a handful of subjects (I could pick more). It's the kind of smut that would have no difficulty in demonstrating to an overzealous prosecutor that it has unquestionable artistic validity beyond its simple first amendment right to exist.

Now, unless one believes Gaiman to be an incompetant, this is a pretty noteworthy defense of the book. And, hey, he's even read it! "All about consequences," he writes. Does that sound like PLAYBOY, JUGGS, MAXIM, or any other jerk-off magazine?

And you can write his opinion off if you want - maybe he's just showing Brit solidarity! Maybe he's addicted to cartoon porn and will do anything to justify it! Maybe he's just setting up a legal defense for his pal, Moore! But from what I know of Gaiman, he's what you'd call a pretty decent bloke, and I don't believe any of that of him. Based on his review and other reviews I've read, I think it's specious to write off LOST GIRLS with as purely prurient materiel.

Indeed, nearly every review I've read has acknowledged that the net effect of the book is not overly titillating. It sounds a lot like a book that just tries to get readers thinking about sex, and knowing Moore, probably in some challenging ways. Sex being one if not THE most primal aspects of human behavior, I can't imagine a more worthy topic.

Joe Zhang wrote: Actually Dave was quite upset, bringing up the matter again a day later. I don't blame him. On the other hand, I don't read pedophile comic books.

Joe, I'm still waiting to hear back on what you were talking about with this post. It seems an overt lie to me, and borderline libelous in its implication of pedophiliac tastes.

Clarify the matter for me.

Jay, I'm hoping the net effect of all this is that when someone reads a post from me, they'll subconsciously hear "complete asshole" in their head directly after. Like a little whispered voice.

(complete asshole)

QUOTE: ...but can't the other side see how it could be considered a superficially sophisticated excuse to be shocking and perverse as well?

Sure, I can see how people would consider that, and I've acknowledged it in some of my past posts - when John Mietus and I were first back-and-forthing over LOST GIRLS, and even in that post I linked to above. It all comes down to how one perceives Moore's past work, and even as someone who rarely finds his work to be "superficial", I recognize he sometimes plays the role of the provocateur. I just see most of his provocations as leading to insight, where a good number of folks here don't think the ends justify the means in his case. Or don't find the ends compelling.

Yeah, I can understand the "other side". With a work like THE KILLING JOKE, I even agree with much of their POV, but I think Moore's body of work is deep enough to have earned him the benefit of the doubt on the subject of intent.

Exploring Sexuality is fine. Doing in a comic is fine. But why in the world use the characters from childrens book to do this? That my only question and objection.

So they're digging back to the 70s now. DidJB do a lot of childerns character porn books back then?

Mike Norris wrote: Exploring Sexuality is fine. Doing in a comic is fine. But why in the world use the characters from childrens book to do this? That my only question and objection.

Mike, Moore's been very specfic about why he wanted to use the characters. Essentially, he sees their youthfulness and the surreality of their adventures as a fertile metaphors for the strange way sexuality comes into the lives of many young people. Part one of the interview he did at Newsarama gets into your exact question a few paragraphs down:

http://www.newsarama.com/TopShelf/LostGirls/MooreLG_01.html - http://www.newsarama.com/TopShelf/LostGirls/MooreLG_01.html

And there's a second part that expands upon it:

http://www.newsarama.com/TopShelf/LostGirls/MooreLG_02.html - http://www.newsarama.com/TopShelf/LostGirls/MooreLG_02.html

I get the feeling they're unlikely to change many minds here, but I felt reassured after reading them that Moore had had not gone into the story with debased intent.

It always amuses me when a reviewer calls a book "literary". Well, duh.

Especially when they use the word to describe a graphic novel. What, were all those plain old comic books "illiterate"?

Floyd Kermode: There are many delightful threads here and JB's art has brought pleasure to many, but this place frequently gives the impression of a forum that is run by a troll.

If you think this place is run by a troll, then I wonder how you feel about most other comic-related message boards?  You must not visit many of them because most of what I see out there is nothing more than verbal masturbation, bolstered by frequent expletives and elitist garbage.  That this place has more than a modicum of civility to it, and that it does not suffer the fools lightly, makes it a decent and enjoyable place to come to.

To me, this place is like going out to dinner with long-lost friends and spending the evening catching up.  Most other message boards are like visiting a run-down crack house full of feces-slinging monkeys (no offense to feces-slinging monkeys).

Ok I read Moores rational. Cant say I agree with it. Sometimesa cigar is just a cigar. Though using those characters does provide a hook for the story and the reader. The story could be told with original characters, but would lack that hook and the free publicity it causes.

Alan Moore can do as much wrong as the next man.

The 'blonde hispanic whores' thing and the 'speech bubble is like nigger' things?

By the time I realized the Bad Byrne stories -- which included such fables as "Byrne's stuff doesn't sell anymore", first heard when I was doing FANTASTIC FOUR and selling twice as many copies per month as I had on X-MEN -- it was already too late. They had become a motif in fandom. Add in the InterNet, and those who come to forums where I post with the deliberate intent of "rattling (my) cage" -- and off we go. I do not suffer fools gladly. In fact, I do not suffer them at all. But, on the InterNet, there are more than enough sycophants who are eager to turn those fools into martyrs.

As noted further up thread, scratch an offendee, find an offender.

I have a question for Mike O'Brien.  If you did not want Dave to quote you out of context, why did you delete your posts?

What little remains gives the impression that you seem to be the very thing you hate.  Try to remember Mike, as a fan of JB's when you behave as you have in this thread, the shit that should so rightly be attributed to you also unfortunately sticks to JB, unfair as that is.

Grow up. 

John Byrne wrote: In fact, he is supporting something he admits he has not actually seen yet.

Moore has a body of work I find mostly trustworthy - why wouldn't I be interested in something new from him? Like the Scorcese fan excited for the next Scorcese flick, I have a certain amount of faith that Moore will produce something worthy.

John Byrne wrote: And invoking "you haven't seen it yet" as an argument against those who condemn it -- this despite the fact that those who have not seen it are operating, in forming their opinions, on Moore's own descriptions of the project.

Given that the book's been characterized as nothing more than an exercise in pedophilia or "cartoon porn", I get the feeling that a lot of people here HAVEN'T been reading Moore's descriptions. And the only person I asked for "proof" from was Mike O'Brien, who likened LOST GIRLS to Madonna's Sex book with an air of authority. Me, I haven't said the book is definitively anything - only made educated guesses based on first-hand accounts - but Mike wrote, "Lost Girls is like Madonna's Sex book" and assessed it as "...a lame, over-priced non-strokable smut book aimed at hard-core fans." Sounded like he knew something we didn't, so I asked him what.

Like I said a few pages earlier, it's your board, your right to drop proclamations, but I really don't feel I'm venturing into asshole territory by standing up for a project I think might have merit. For me, asshole territory is Joe Zhang posting libelous dreck about me reading "pedophile comics" and Mike O'Brien posting "eat shit in hell, you pedophile" (then deleting that and more, and posting an apology that's not really an apology). Why is that behavior allowed to stand, but I'm called out for defending, without insult, a controversial work?

Dave Farabee wrote: Why is that behavior allowed to stand, but I'm called out for defending, without insult, a controversial work?

Well, because this isn't a democracy in here, I guess....JB supports (or doesn't stop, anyway) that behaviour and disagrees with yours.  He isn't a neutral observer of an argument, he has his side and you have yours.  I think both Mike and Joe (both of whom I like) have stepped over the line pretty egregiously in this thread, but it's not my board.  And JB can put up with whatever he chooses.  Don't like it, don't show up. 

Edit: surplus asterisks

Joe, if you gave a shit about right and wrong, why'd you overtly LIE about me on page five of this thread? You claim I made a post where I was upset about Byrne dropping the a-hole thing on me - I didn't, and the thread's still there as proof. Anyone looking will see I brushed the dismissal off, joking that Gaiman (who liked the book) and I must've been two peas in a pod. A few pages later, I got curious and asked what specifically designated me an a-hole. At no point was I "upset." You've lied about me, or at the bare minimum, mischaracterized me.

The thread:

http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12847& ;PN=1&TPN=1 - http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12847& ;PN=1&TPN=1

And in the same post where you make up this supposed "upset", you try to smear me with the implication I read "pedophile comics."

What gives, Joe? Where's your moral high ground when you resort to such sleazy tactics?

But, this has now taken on something of the status of a cult, and "independent thinkers" all over the InterNet would rather spread lies than appear "uncool" by actually standing up for the truth. It's no surprise at all, is it, that so many of these are the same people who support the "darkening" of superheroes. They don't want to read the adventures of characters whose deeds and words show them, the readers, what weasels they really are. They'd much rather bask in the comfort zone provided by heroes with "feet of clay". They'd much rather think "Batman would win because he cheats." "Byrne is an ogre because, to say otherwise would require me to actually think for myself."

Truth.  Okay JB, I get that, I believe in it too.  I also believe in fair play and common decency.  I don't think you can realistically expect people to play fair unless you are prepared to do so yourself.

Two of the more prominent members of this board have conducted little short of character assassination of another member who happens to have a differing opinion from them, a difference of opinion you share.  That member has despite his differing opinion behaved courteously through out.

My question to you JB as an advocate of truth, do you condone their behaviour?

I neither condone nor condemn those members you single out. They react as they see fit -- as I do. And one of them, as you also choose to ignore, went a long time tyring to "play fair" before all of his buttons were finally pushed.

I've been lucky enough to meet many people whose work I respect (JB being one of them, back when MOS #1 first came out-- you signed the book for me, JB, and answered my question about Fearbook, so... I have no Bad Byrne story. ah well). In nearly every case, the encounter has been a delightful one, partly because I've tried to be respectful and appropriate to the person I'm meeting.

The handful of really negative encounters I've had-- and I've had a few-- did not affect my appreciation for that creator's work. All it did was persuade me that that person was either 1) having a really bad day or 2) a jerk I'm glad I don't know.

People often make assumptions about a creator based on their work or what they think they see in a creator's work. (Often the latter is a wild distortion that they have never corrected.) These assumptions are meaningless because they proceed from a complete lack of information. If the reader doesn't know the creator personally, why should they assume anything about the creator's opinions or beliefs? It's ignorance in operation to think that creating a character with repugnant beliefs or habits means the creator feels the same way.

First off: WOW.  Some of the back-and-forth in this thread makes me think I should wear a cup before daring to enter the discussion.

But I'm going to leave Lost Girls alone - I have a comment to make about it but it's not what I want to talk about.  I want to try to stay on topic - and I stipulate that everything I have to say is pure pop psychology.

For starters - I don't go out much.  Crowds give me the willies, and I can't stand to be around people who are drinking alcohol (just a phobia of drunk people) or smoking (burns my eyes and throat for the first hour, and then I'm a little freaked out that it STOPPED burning my eyes and throat).  Plus, I have always just preferred a quiet night at home, alone.

Then one night I went to see Frank Black & The Catholics perform in Indianapolis.  I called three of my five brothers who were also FB & The Cs fans and basically made them buy tickets also.  I was the one who introduced them to one of the great songwriters of our time and I was very proud to be there for the show with my brothers.  My family isn't super-close so this was a real treat.  Anyway, after the show we were in the parking lot waiting for traffic to clear and there was the man himself, Frank Black, in the parking lot chatting with fans.  For an hour.  While I stood, less than thirty feet away, debating whether or not to approach.  In the end, the decision was simple: I'd already had a wonderful night; why ruin it?

Why would talking to FB ruin it?  Why on Earth would I think that?  He was talking, GRINNING even, with his fans.  There was no reason to feel the way I did, but I did.  I was worried that I'd say something stupid and make a fool of myself.  And so then I got thinking that FB would agree with me that I had made a fool of myself.  THEN I worried that FB would realize I'd made a fool of myself before I realized I'd made a fool of myself, and that he'd be only to happy to point it out.  I'd worked out an entire interaction that left me in a fetal position at the feet of a man I regarded as a genius, and he was regarding me with something akin to bemused disdain.

This is what I think happens to Byrne Bashers.  They claim to dislike JB, but I think it's a reaction formation to the hatred they think he would feel for them if he knew them.  They are living out unilaterally a perceived mutual dislike.

That's what I think, anyway.

I usually play the cards I'm dealt. Which is, as you note, one of the reasons I don't do cons any more. Too many sad boys who want to collect their own "Bad Byrne" story, and come in with guns a-blazin' trying to provoke me. 99 times out of 100, they fail -- in which case they just make up a story -- but sometimes they succeed. In the end, it's simply not worth the energy.

That sounds like you're saying I should change my work to suit your changing tastes.

For arguments sake, let's say JB offended you at a con or online. He made you so angry that you didn't want to read his work anymore. Great time to move on to another creator who treated you like a king when you talked to him. Good for new creator, bad for JB.

Yet, it seems that everyone who feels slighted by JB can't stop talking about him, reading about him or follow his every action online. Like a lover who has been scorned they can't stop dreaming about the great times of their relationship. (Oh when I loved him and he was on the Fantastic Four those were the best times) But like a lover who can't get over the fact their favorite moved on they stalk and criticize their current relationship. (Doom Patrol is not as pretty as Wonder Woman, doesn't he know that I loved him more when he was doing Namor? Come back to what I loved you on so I can love again!) He is the love that didn't live up to your impossible to meet expectations and now you want to drag his name in the mud. If this were the real world and not online, I would think JB would have to take out a restraining order for a lot of people. So all you former slighted fans please keep 15 links away from this website at all times.

Heh - they're retconning themselves into never having liked your work. "Post-Crisis" fans.

Plus, as it has become popular to dis my work with increasing vehemence, even those who once spoke favorably of my Superman days have started chirping a whole new tune. The "club" grows retroactively.

******

Could be, but you obviously have a pretty sizable and loyal fan following, too. Plenty of fans (many of whom have never even heard of this board) still enjoy your work, past and present.

As for the whole "Bad Byrne" deal, it's hard to understand how a creator who has posted 22,000+ times on a fan site can be considered (by some) to be unfriendly to fans. Seems to me that if you didn't like the fans, you would stay as far away from these types of discussions as possible.

If anything, JB, you may be guilty of being too open. In the real-time world of message boards, it's easy to understand calling someone "an idiot" or other name in the context of a heated debate, particularly if you have had previous dealings with that poster.

But it's also understandable how someone who doesn't know the context could say, "Boy, John Byrne sure was rude to that guy." Even though message board comments are the equivalent of a bar room discussion, they become a permanent transcript in a way that casual conversations never do. Sometimes, it's better to step away from the computer, walk around the room, maybe turn on the TV before clicking the "Post Reply" button. I know how tough that can be, though - I certainly don't always take my own advice.

I'm torn on this...JBs forthright style is one of my reasons for coming here at all; I think his posts are entertaining and informative in about equal measure.  Too, it would stick in my craw somewhat to think that the campaigning against him by the small number of individuals elsewhere had borne fruit in getting him to modify his behaviour.  However, if it would help him to restore his rightful position in the industry, as a huge fan of his, it might be worth losing a little of what I like.

As ever, it's his call, and his cause to hurt if he wishes (if indeed 'it' does hurt it).  But it is surely undeniable that his net presence here is fantastc, and greatly appeciated even by a lapsed comic buyer like me

First people wanted to see super heroes fuck.

Now they supposedly want to see Alice in Wonder Land and Dorothy of Kansas fuck. {sarcasm} Great. Progress.{/sarcasm}

Personally I want to see Marvin the Martian fuck but that's mostly out of morbid curiosity regarding the potential humor of it (Ow! You're lying on my hair! Wha? You don't even HAVE hair!) and there's really no point now that Chuck Jones and Mel Blanc are both dead anyway.

Bring on the Sexual Adventures of Paddington Bear(from when he was a cocaine addicted dupe of the CIA penetrating UK security at the height of the cold war) and woe to any that are so base and tasteless, and simple, and stupidly parochial as to raise an objection. No one can hope to stand in the way of such a fundamental force for change and progress. Why that's practically book burning.  

No doubt "the Sexual Adventures of Paddington Bear" will be the artistic pinnacle...nay..the very capstone of the Cenozoic era. It will be the finest work of any mammal!  What fool would dare seek to rob all humanity of that? Y'know. By criticiszing it on high conceptual grounds alone. Crazy.

OMG! It's Tropic of Cancer all over again! Except with childhood fantasy characters! DEFEND THE LIBERTY CON QUESO DESPUES!!!

Once, on this very board and during a discussion on some thread (about something), I commented on a remark that JB had made and he responded by comparing me to Kreskin.

It still royally cracks me up whenever I think about it.  Funny stuff!

I've gotten to see / meet / interact with the Byrnemeister twice at Dragoncon in Atlanta.   I purchased an original She-Hulk page from his graphic novel right out of his hot little hands.  I got to see him "produce" a Thing sketch which he auctioned away, and I got to say directly to himself how much I had enjoyed his work for many years.

For all of the reasons that he has revealed for not doing conventions any longer, I really dislike all the haters.  JB has been doing some of the best artwork of his career on Doom Patrol, Blood of the Demon, and from what I've seen of the All-New Atom, that book as well.

I drool everytime he posts his latest commission and pick up a Powerball ticket weekly in hopes that I can get one for myself someday.

I read through this multi-page thread and am left with the conclusion that -yes, indeed - many so-called "fans" are simply stupid.

Odd, that, isn't it, JD?  The common mindset on the net is that we're all drones here on the JBF, agreeing with everything and anything that JB has to say.  We ban people for nonconformity and slap down anyone with a dissenting opinion.  Not true at all, of course, but they can't see the herd mentality in themselves.  Just look at any of a number of threads on Newsarama or the DC boards (when such threads existed).  Detractors outnumber supporters 2:1 and they shout down anyone who even remotely disagrees with them.  That's the truth.

Pot/Kettle anyone?

What really warrants a ban..aside from the obvious? There are times during some of the debates that I would like to respond, but I feel because of some of my more pitbullish ways on past iterations of JB boards that I might get banned for it. I really enjoy this board..so I end up biting my tongue because I don't want to offend the wrong people.

Casey

I use "asshole" because Penn & Teller have taught me I can't be sued for so doing. Otherwise, there are somre really choice words I would use.

Nothing new under the sun. One of Roger Stern's favorite stories is of when, working on THE AVENGERS, he received a letter asking "Whatever happend to George Perez?" George was working on the phenomenally popular TEEN TITANS at the time.

How anyone could have missed Perez on the Titans would be beyond me. Wasn't that one of the best selling comics of that era?

"What's a "chicken-fry"?  Is that a reference to people who work in the fast food industry?  Or some kind of diagonal reference to the old "black people like fried chicken" chestnut?  I don't get it."

It's a term originating from my mind from "chicken-fried steak", which is a Southern type thing. As in THE STAND miniseries when Stu Redman is told, "It makes me sick to see good men die while chicken-fried crap like you lives." Paraphrasing. I use it to designate any worthless degenerate ill-conception who disregards responsibility and has no moral or ethical stance whatsoever. (Not, I note, Stu Redman, but the term fit a whole subset of society, black, white, Mexican, whatever...human beings with no desire to better themselves, the world, or the quality of life. In other words, a "chicken-fry").

Of course you're ready to play the racial angle. Why would I be on this forum to begin with, and in this thread, if my whole stance is using racial epitaphs? How about some common sense?

And my assertion that this culture is D-U-N is valid, friend. Where's the advancement? Where are the great minds? The technology age is the new Dark Age. Originality cannot form in the soil of mediocrity. And what the technology age has provided is the immobilization of self, of the rise of the idea that "everyone has a chance". Well, they don't. That's a reality. Real genius, real talent, is now buried under mountains of mediocre voices crying out for attention. Stephen Hawking is the closest approximation of "greatness" this culture has left, one of a few voices left who might impart something that could change everything. And not everyone has to do that, but in this day and age, how would you know it? With mediocrity being hailed as genius left and right, and the subsequent relief of this culture to fall in line with that subterreanean watermark (since it doesn't require work), you're left with an empty fast food mentality ready to anoint the next temporary blip in the dwindling stream of great minds. No integrity, no worth.

I simply assert that the unborn aborted millions do not contain the key to mankind's modern or future relevance. It doesn't require one great genius to solve all the problems, or a Superman savior. It takes men and women committed to making the culture better, to solve the problems that people were interested in solving sometime in the 1960s, but which dissolved as fantasy soonafter. The culture is currently exhausted, and most likely only catastrophe will both result and solve the issue of lost potential. In 1968, man walked on the moon. 37 years later, where have things gone? Where are the advancements? Did all those abortions result in the death of the man who would have taken mankind to the stars, or to some subatomic dimension?

Highly likely that cat would have merely contributed to the next strain of ebola which will, no doubt, arise as nature attempts to balance out all of this overpopulation. The point that was made was that pro-choice does not preclude the existence of hope for a better world. Frankly, I'm more in the Ambrose Bierce camp, and was he really wrong? Some people thought 911 was going to change the culture. And it did, in all the wrong ways. Vats of jingoist peanut butter with no expiration date. Congratulations.

It just occurred to me that the "Real Genius" beer ads actually sum up this society, and culture, perfectly. It's funny and painfully true at the same time. All that's left is if somebody figures out how to tap into the higher brain functions so that we can all wear cyber-helmets and dream our way out of this reality.

What we really need are "Norman Osbourne Hearts Gwen Stacy" t-shirts

or other t-shirt ideas.

Spider-Man sez: hey Kids! Stay in school, don't do drugs, do what your mom tells you to... or I'll swing over to your house in my new techno armor, pop my wrist spikes, and eat part of your face!

Blue Beetle:Better Dead than Ted. With a picture of Maxwell Lord blowing the poor guy's brains out...

How about one with Dr. Light standing in the Superman hands on hips pose and leering above a caption that reads "rec.arts.comics.DC.Identity_Crisis.Metzler.plot.sue_dibney. rape.rape.rape"

Or we could have a picture of Powerman and Jessica Jones and he's telling her to "Bendis Over"...

Or maybe a picture of the Watcher gouging his own eyes out...

They hate you because they're supposed to? What about those who decided to come on over to find the truth and were disappointe with what they found and whilst they don't hate you find they don't like what they find? Is that herd mentality?

They hate you because they're supposed to? What about those who decided to come on over to find the truth and were disappointe with what they found and whilst they don't hate you find they don't like what they find? Is that herd mentality?

*******

Could be applied to anything, David.  'Those who came over to find etc.' are welcome to their views.  And can fuck off without anyone stopping them.  Why then launch the kind of 'crusade' JB has referred to?  And he is right to feel that there is a vitriolic, deliberate campaign to destroy his career from some of these people.

Not everyone starts a crusade. I've not, have I? I'm just interested because it sounds like there's no middle ground. For or against.

Dave Farabee wrote: Why is that behavior allowed to stand, but I'm called out for defending, without insult, a controversial work?

Ian Evans wrote: Well, because this isn't a democracy in here, I guess....JB supports (or doesn't stop, anyway) that behaviour and disagrees with yours.  He isn't a neutral observer of an argument, he has his side and you have yours.  I think both Mike and Joe (both of whom I like) have stepped over the line pretty egregiously in this thread, but it's not my board.  And JB can put up with whatever he chooses.  Don't like it, don't show up.

I think you're right, Ian. And, truthfully, I'm still not bothered by that Byrne himself should dismiss me - he's the big kahuna here - but if he and his mods are going to lend tacit approval to behavior like Zhang and O'Brien exhibited, the board's effectively become the pit some have accused it of being.

Lies? Acceptable. Libel? Acceptable. Double-standards? Acceptable.

Matt, so sorry I almost disturbed your sleep when one of your board members went nuts, made borderline threatening posts, then took them down to hide behind a wall of cowardice. I just thought you might be interested in doing your fucking job as a moderator. No other halfway decent moderated forum would've let Mike's behavior stand.

Joe Zhang lying in front of everyone? The proof there for all to see? Hey, it's cool! He's part of the Old Boys Club. He gets to pontificate on morality while lying and insnuating I'm a pedophile, but hey, it's a good thing you were there to watch me like a hawk when I dared to ask Mike if he'd read a book. You really are a GOOD GUY, Matt! Tell yourself that. Try to convince yourself I've behaved attrociously when I've done nothing but take an unpopular opinion and defend myself from spurious attacks. Try to convince yourself that your pals are good guys too, even if their behavior is anything but.

You'd think guys who grew up with superheroes would act a bit more responsibly. I showed interest in a work of fiction; they engaged in tacitly approved lies, libel, and cowardice. Even Mike's second "apology" was just another passive/aggressive blow-up - the latest in his long string of them, and just another chance for him to feel sorry for himself. 

It's the behavior of a cretin. As was Zhang's. As was yours, Matt.

But Ian's right, this is Byrne's world, and if that's to be the accepted behavior, I leave the board to this back-patting confederacy. I had some fun for a few years. Nearly made a thousand posts, and still respect many of the posters. Have no plans to join any "campaign" against this board.

But I don't give it any more respect.

(I know, I know, "don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out"... Gimme something original.)

Original enough?

I think that the internet has blown any criticsms of Mr Byrne way out of proportion.

I stand by my "seperate the art from the artist sentiment", and I wish people could do that.

My first american comic was a Spider-Man drawn by JB (a fact I only discovered after my frst visits here), twenty years later I can still see nearly every panel in my minds eye.  Coming here and finding that the artist holds views that I don't agree with and has said things I'd prefer he hadn't does not diminish the story in my mind.

For that I'd like to thank him.

How anyone could have missed Perez on the Titans would be beyond me. Wasn't that one of the best selling comics of that era?

------------------------------------------------------------ ----

i did!

Seriously -- you became a Forum member just for that? You think Eminem reads these posts?

This question comes from personal experience?

Dave Farabee wrote: Matt, so sorry I almost disturbed your sleep when one of your board members went nuts, made borderline threatening posts, then took them down to hide behind a wall of cowardice. I just thought you might be interested in doing your fucking job as a moderator. No other halfway decent moderated forum would've let Mike's behavior stand.

I'm sorry, Dave, but what part of 12:30 AM in the morning, me being asleep, and being called out for, you know, not doing something in the middle of the night don't you understand?  Good God, but you can be a pompous ass when you want to be.  You took what Mike wrote personally, but reading it in context he didn't liken you to Hitler or anyone else.  He wasn't talking about you, he was speaking in generalities.  But, oh no.  Bastion of all-things PC "Big Tex" Dave Farabee gets his feelers hurt, and he can't possibly understand context.  No, instead he calls on the mods to do his bidding...in the middle of the f**king night. My behavior?  Mine?  Yeah. I dared to ask you to clarify "advanced copy" and then went to bed.  Wow.  Gotta watch that kind of behavior from now on lest I rub Big Tex the wrong way.

Cry me a river and give me a frickin' break.  Take you pit accusations of this forum and go play with the other kewl kids on Ain't It Cool, Dave. 

Dave Farabee wrote: No other halfway decent moderated forum would've let Mike's behavior stand.

Oh yeah, one more thing...bullshit.  Your own Ain't It Cool does worse than that on a daily basis...or don't you read other message boards?  Hmmm...riiiiiiiight.  Never seen anything like that at all on Newsarama.

Waiting for Dave to totally not get it and come back with "but I thought you guys were better than that".

Dave Farabee wrote: But Ian's right, this is Byrne's world, and if that's to be the accepted behavior, I leave the board to this back-patting confederacy.

Yippee!  Haven't had an "I'm leaving and I'm leaving for good" post in a long, looooooong time. 

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Yeah, I know you were looking for originality, but a classic is a classic for a reason.

I just don't get the deleting of posts - it happens a lot and I'm left with a disjointed picture of whatever just happened.  If I felt I were having my words twisted about, I wouldn't up and remove them.  Creates doubt.

Also (and I understand this may well be none of my business) am I reading this correctly that Dave contacted Matt at home about this thread?  That's just silly.  Matt posts here about every 2 nanoseconds; I'm sure he would've read this thread & done whatever he felt he needed to do as moderator - if anything.  And if he were inclined NOT to do anything, how is a phone call going to change that?  Reminds me of Demi Moore strenuously objecting in A Few Good Men.

Edited to add: Matt's post below mine clears things up nicely, so rather than post again I was going to mention here that he cleared it up nicely, but then I thought he might not see my mention that he cleared it up nicely, so NOW I'm going to leave this edit here, which doesn't really say ANYTHING except what I'm about to say again as soon as I post.  Hint for the kids: never edit to add something before you are fully awake!

John Byrne: Dessert Topping or Suntan Lotion? 

ummmmm.........Mr.Byrne.....errrrrrrr......aren't these guys the same people that dress up at conventions?????.....you know the fat guy batman.......the pencil neck capt.america..........the triple chin ninja?????......i really would look at the where this comes from........not exactly our future world leaders.............hmmmm

maybe im wrong??? yikes!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Gail and JB have teamed up before with very good results on Action Comics.
2. It's not the Atom you are used to, you might like this one.
3. Online ordering is so easy, with no minimum orders that you never have to step into a comic shop again.
4. An investment of three bucks or less for one month might prove you wrong.
5. Instead of spending the energy making up reasons why you can't read a book, try it out. Where is the actual harm?

Jacob P Secrest wrote: But his status does say "Not Active", I thought that meant that the person was banned. Did I misunderstand the purpose of the "Status" in the profile?

Don't know how much simpler I can make this... 

Dave was not banned. Banning means that a person is refused entry do to something they did or said.

Dave quit the forum.

Since he quit the forum, his membership was switched to "Not Active".

Whatever may or may not have happened to another forum member when they quit is of no concern to the question at hand. 

Once again, Dave Farabee was not banned.  He left of his own volition, as stated in his last post two pages back.

End of story.

Me:  "What's a "chicken-fry"?  Is that a reference to people who work in the fast food industry?  Or some kind of diagonal reference to the old "black people like fried chicken" chestnut?  I don't get it."

Chad Carter:  It's a term originating from my mind from "chicken-fried steak", which is a Southern type thing. As in THE STAND miniseries when Stu Redman is told, "It makes me sick to see good men die while chicken-fried crap like you lives." Paraphrasing.

I'll go ahead and say that your usage, in this case, by no means references a universally understood nomenclature.  The fact that you needed to incorporate both "from my mind" and "Southern type thing [sic]" in your explanation tends to bear me out.

Chad:  Of course you're ready to play the racial angle. Why would I be on this forum to begin with, and in this thread, if my whole stance is using racial epitaphs? How about some common sense?

"Of course" I'm ready to "play the racial angle"?  What makes you think that, Chad?  All I was doing was trying to make some sort of sense of the confusing language you employed.  What it is about me, I wonder, that makes you think I have some sort of racially-motivated agenda?

Chad:  And my assertion that this culture is D-U-N is valid, friend. Where's the advancement? Where are the great minds? The technology age is the new Dark Age. Originality cannot form in the soil of mediocrity. And what the technology age has provided is the immobilization of self, of the rise of the idea that "everyone has a chance". Well, they don't. That's a reality. Real genius, real talent, is now buried under mountains of mediocre voices crying out for attention.

Wow.  I hear a lot of horse shit in my average day, but this rant has to rank right up there.  Chad?  Quick heads-up, here.  What you know about the human race, you're apparently learning from television.  And television is shit.  Television, to quote Jules Winfield, lives and roots in shit.  That's a filthy animal. 

Of course things look bleak from the couch in your living room.  The evening news?  Reality TV?  It's all jam-packed with assholes and "celebrities" and fame junkies, people with nothing to offer the whole of society in the long term, and maybe not even the short term.  Mediocrity, to use your word, is exactly what's taken over the airwaves.  Why?  Because there's money in it.  There's ratings in it. 

But that's not all there is of our quaint little species.  There remain geniuses and heroes and visionaries.  You don't see them on the Jay Leno or Jon Stewart shows because market research has shown that the people who buy cars are more interested in seeing movie stars and "musicians" (yes, that word is in quotation marks for a reason) than people who actually have the intellect and determination to make the world a better place.  You also don't see them on TV because more than a few of them live outside of the United States of America.  Surely those people can't matter, right?

Chad:  Stephen Hawking is the closest approximation of "greatness" this culture has left, one of a few voices left who might impart something that could change everything. And not everyone has to do that, but in this day and age, how would you know it?

You're not going to hear me bad-mouth Hawking, or say that he's anything short of a world-class mind.  I will, though, point out that the only reason you've ever heard of him is because a publicity agent somewhere realized that there was money to be made by foisting him onto the public.  (The wheelchair!  The stuff about time!  This is a no-brainer, fellow cigar-chewing guys from central casting!)  The academic physics community knew who Hawking was long before he was showing up on THE SIMPSONS and STAR TREK and wound up having a movie made about him...and that's part of the point I'm making.

Chad:  I simply assert that the unborn aborted millions do not contain the key to mankind's modern or future relevance.

If anyone is saying that the aborted millions do contain such a key, then he/she is disregarding, if nothing else, the law of averages.  It is true that if someone is never born, his/her potential can never be realized, but that doesn't hold up as a reason to ban abortion.  In this we agree.

Chad:  The culture is currently exhausted, and most likely only catastrophe will both result and solve the issue of lost potential.

You have no way of knowing this.  Acting as though you do makes you look like a moron.

Chad:  In 1968, man walked on the moon. 37 years later, where have things gone?

Just to add a third or fourth millstone around your neck at this point, (a) APOLLO 11 landed on the moon on July 20, 1969; and (b) even if your 1968 gaffe had been correct, that would have been 38 years ago, not 37.  (Oh, and (c)?  You can't start a sentence with a number.)  Thanks for playing, though.

Chad:  Where are the advancements? Did all those abortions result in the death of the man who would have taken mankind to the stars, or to some subatomic dimension?

We'll never know.  Again, I agree with you that the "Every aborted child is a lost chance at greatness!" agrument is a flawed one, but to say with certainty that you feel certain that none of the abortions performed in the past kept a world-changing human being from being born is nothing less than ridiculous.  How the hell could you know that for sure?

Chad:  Highly likely that cat would have merely contributed to the next strain of ebola which will, no doubt, arise as nature attempts to balance out all of this overpopulation.

Ebola.  A virus which probably originated in what was once Zaire.  Wasn't there a question about "the racial angle" a while back?  I might have to send it back your way.  It is "highly likely" that one's average aborted fetus would have contributed to the next strain of ebola?  How do you get there from where you sit, Chad?

Chad:  The point that was made was that pro-choice does not preclude the existence of hope for a better world.

That was not the point made by you.  If that's what you were going for, you missed.  By a lot.

Chad:  Frankly, I'm more in the Ambrose Bierce camp, and was he really wrong? Some people thought 911 was going to change the culture. And it did, in all the wrong ways. Vats of jingoist peanut butter with no expiration date. Congratulations.

Look!  Sound bites with no meaning whatsoever!  Fox News is awaiting its first pro-choice employee, Chad.  Give 'em a call.

Congrats right back atcha, by the way.

''They hate me because they're supposed to, JD.

Independent thought is discourage in fandom. ''

Just because others disagree with your view, doesn't mean they aren't expressing their own informed opinions.

And yes, there a lot of idiots out there, but they exist in all areas of life, and express all opinions.You don't seem to realise people are forming their opinions by your posts on this board, yet you can't seem to grasp that, let alone acknowledge it.

Your posts here are damaging only yourself, and only adding to your bad image.Heck, I'm a fan, and even I'm cringing.

You claim to be intelligent, then act like you are. Show yourself to be above reproach, and above your detractors. 

Craig,

Mostly people are forming their opinions through second hand distortions of posts Mr. Byrne made on this board and this is magnified by a loud body of people reflecting, refocusing, and further distorting them. This can be demonstrated to be a very large part of the "backlash movement" because when you ask them about what they read that bothered them, and they repeat what they claim to have read,  for the most part it's wrong, out of context, or such a bizarre reach that it's not really worth discussing further.

From what I've seen few if any of the people doing all the bitching out there are above reproach in any respect or even careful about being accurate in what they are reproaching in Mr. Byrne for. I'm not above reproach. Being above reproach is not really much of a prerequisite for being allowed to speak. Espcially on one's own forum. So the whole above reproach thing is a lot of self righteous idealistic crap. Still I have to wonder when the terminally bitchy bitch about bitchiness what is to be done? How can they be satisfied? Is attempting to satisfy them in any way productive?

Cringe all you want. It doesn't mean anything except that something made you cringe. People cringe at different things. Alan Moore's Lost Girls project obviously makes some people cringe(me amongst them) and yet it has been defended through thick and thin by many of the people who are now claiming offense at Mr. Byrne's behavior. Cringing is rarley objective or universally authortitative in its significance.

So who's right? And really who even cares? If you don't like how Mr. Byrne responds to people then why are you even here? What do you think is likely to happen if you come here to be in the presence of what you do not like?

Do you have an axe to grind? Were you chosen by some by obscure prophecy to change the world and save the internet from itself? Are you the guy who is gonna get Mr. Byrne to suddenly become tame? And if he did become "tame" then are all the self righteous slogan chucking angry mob kids really going to suddenly stop ragging on him and accept him back into the congregation as redeemed? I mean other than YOU tossing your two cents in just WHAT the hell did you think was going to be accomplished as a result of your post? Do you have anything to contribute here besides the "nyah nyah nyah shame on you" stuff? Did we really need to know that you now agree with the detractor crowd? Do you imagine that we don't read Mr. Byrne's stuff and draw our own (possibly different!) conclusions? Are you here to lead us out of slavery? Are you gonna be Moses to the John Byrne forum? Why are you here?

For instance, do you have any questions for Mr. Byrne about his career or work or his likes or dislikes or oinions? Are you even reading his comics? Are you curious about his role in making them as either artist or writer or contributor? Do you even have any interest in talking to him beyond "giving him a piece of your mind" or taking him to task on what you perceive to be his misbehavior?

If not I have to wonder why you came.(let me guess..it's the "free country defense" isn't it?) What is with all this "therapeutic dissenter" horse shit? As much as I criticize Alan Moore do I go to his website and toss rocks at him? No. I do not. Why?  Because(assuming he actually has a website) it exists for him (probably paid for by him) and for people who have a genuine interest in him so they can talk to each other. It is not a goddamned arena for would be gun fighters, snarks, and pissy offended critics to come and play king of the mountain. It is not the King of the Iron Fist Tournament. It is not a monarchy awaiting it's own historically inevitable equivalent of the French revolution.

This is proverbially speaking John Byrne's back yard. You get to have things how you want in your own back yard. So does he. You get to be arbitrary and capricious in your own backyard. So does he. The only way to see what's happening in Mr Byrne's backyard is to go there. He doesn't bother you in your favorite forum. He doesn't send out press releases. He posts HERE. In his yard so to speak.

If you don't like what happens HERE then you are free not to come HERE. If you maintain that you are above even caring about what happens HERE (because it sucks so much with all the yelling and insulting) then please don't prove that you DO CARE by taking what happens HERE back to THERE to use it as grist to stir up shit in the hopes it will come HERE. 

Trolls, their sock puppets, and well meaning but ultimately ridiculous attack dogs have nothing much to contribute to this board worth hearing except that occasionally it can be fun to throw eggs that them if they are obnoxious enough.

It seems to me that you came here to pick a fight because you've got nothing better to do. Please find yourself something better to do Craig. I hear that crocheting and water skiing are fun. And we could all use that quick and easy cancer cure.

''because it sucks so much with all the yelling and insulting)''

Please show me where I posted such a thing.
Disagree with me all you want, you'll find that my post was above that level. Your response was completely off-base.

And Craig fakes with an attempt to show that he's being intentionally misquoted by a myrmidon (but without a follow up of what he's really on about to prove that he's been misquoted) and he takes NONE of what was said to heart and answers NONE of my questions. Then he starts talking about what level he imagines his post was on.

How disappointingly typical (and masturbatory).

Why even talk when we can trade legalistic semantic kung fu and never get anywhere at all?

Thanks gents, for contributing to the bad image this board has.

Nothing to see here but your own view, each the same as the other, with no room to consider other views or suggestions.

And Craig apparently has nothing on but reruns and no ability to answer questions. It doesn't even qualify as interactive at this point does it?

Craig. Why are you on the board with the bad image? Do you like to encounter bad stuff? Is this some kind of internet masochism at work? Are you one  of those people who orders the garlic flavored joke gum because you've actually grown to like the awful nauseating taste of it?

And Craig I did try to consider your view but you claimed that I got it wrong somehow. Then when I asked you a question about about your view to see what I got wrong you failed to answer it. Why is that Craig? And why are you not considering MY view?

it's funny to read all this high and mighty retort......you see in some ways were all racsist at one time or another......how many of you tell polish jokes or black jokes....or make fun of someone because there not as smart as you ......i even

find myself doing it my family and i were walking downtown and and ragged black gentlemen was walking towards us i pulled my kids close to me would i have done the same if it was white man ??? i don't know? the funny thing was he looked at us and greeted us kindly in passing was i ashamed of myself!!

yes i was....and not to long after that we sat down to eat and a middle eastern couple sat down next to us ....first thing in my head??.........i know you can guess what i thought....is it right.....100% no....but it's there in everyone of us

no exceptions ....but if those same people were hurt or need help i would be there with out question....it's such a fine line we all feel it theres good and bad in all of us its how we deal with our inner selves that matters.. typecasting people

seems to be human nature it's why we have had wars in the past and there is not one of you out there that can say in some point in your life you didn't do it.the point i'm trying to make is yes everyone is alittle racist.      

So, pull your head out of whichever bodily orifice you have it stuffed into, and take a look around. You might actually learn something.

Opinions are equally widely spread on all other topics, too, whether it be ^^*****, DC, politics, religion, or hot dog pies.

no one and i mean no one makes a better hot dog pie than my wife!!!

really!!!! there are hot dog pies!!!! and she makes it very well!!

i do have to say the first time she put on the table.....i was wondering if our marrage could last on looks alone.............but after a few bites............ummmm......eerrrrrrrrr.....our marrage has lasted....on looks alone!!!!

John Byrne wrote :

[...] I have no interest in sports. Did I ban all such discussions? No, again. Instead, gave the sports fans their own area. [...].

....

Can we have a cooking area ? because the hot dog pies are appearing all over the forum...

Just kidding...

I have been lurking this thread and up to now didn't wanted to put my 20 cents, by fear that my average english would be misunderstood.

I just would like to say that Mister B. has always appeared fair in his comments maybe a little bit dry to swallow for some. The facts that he is sharing so much of his personal views and works and time on this forum should be enough to show the care he has for his work, the characters he is handling and also his fans.

On another board I visit as a lurker, the artist used to be their all the time, and then people started to question him about some delay and lateness, he totally disappeared ! No more news !

Not only Mister B. is always on time, but he also shares a lot we us.

And after around 30 years of presence in the industry, he is still in the top of the classment... Yeah, I know, some will say that he is not the hottest artist on Wizard list... He is beyond that, he is a legend in the industry.

People, respect that.

As for this thread, I think it should be closed because it is going nowhere and just bring sadness and darkness to a board who is able to display a much brighter and positive sense of community than a lot of other boards.

Hey Lauro-

"Quick heads-up, here.  What you know about the human race, you're apparently learning from television.  And television is shit.  Television, to quote Jules Winfield, lives and roots in shit.  That's a filthy animal."

I don't watch television. I work in a public library. You know, the place where homeless go to shave and B.M? I base my observations on 35 years of life, just like anyone who's lived that long. I don't have to justify the angle. We're not even talking about abortion or racial issues any more. This is a personal thing with you. I've no problem with that. I've lived in Fredericksburg Va, so the proximity to the South is obvious. What's your point? Are you now launching into the famous "He's Southern so he's racist?" moronics? Or is my Southern accent so sexy to you that you can't seem to let go?

You're obviously lashing out at the idiots who populate your own world view, because your assertions of my character are laughable at best. I speak of Stephen Hawking based purely on a vague understanding of his role in our understanding of scientific phenomenon previously not known. AS FAR AS I KNOW. Again, we're having a discussion here. You must be a physicist, because you're certainly not a psychologist.

"Ebola.  A virus which probably originated in what was once Zaire.  Wasn't there a question about "the racial angle" a while back?  I might have to send it back your way.  It is "highly likely" that one's average aborted fetus would have contributed to the next strain of ebola?  How do you get there from where you sit, Chad?"

Is this your finest example of intellectualism? Your reactionary hate-mongering stems from some problem YOU have. By the way, Africa is massively overpopulated. As far as I know, no one knows why Ebola emerged, but the "law of averages" you smirkingly evoke is in full effect. Sooner of later, the natural order will do what it has to create balance. Overpopulation is imbalance. The Black Plague? World war? There are reasons beyond what you and I know about why these things really occur, or the madness behind them.

Lauro, you want to love me, then love me. Or keep sounding off like you're defending some tenable position you're not equipped for. I'm the last person to suggest my intellectual capabilities are astounding, but your lack of understanding of human nature, and of the realities of a hard world from whatever idealized haven you're reporting from, aren't going to convince me of a damn thing. My theories are based in disappointment, my analogies ones of despair. But I don't see anything in your "responses" to answer my questions.

How has man advanced? Why did it seem mankind was heading toward a future, of fulfilling the need to create equality, to providing an ecologically sound world for your children, to then see it fizzle away as every subsequent generation has failed in its responsibility? You haven't noticed this?

What exactly is your argument, Lauro? You sound like you're having a hard time thinking with all the pressure around your head in your anal cavity.

The whole thread is damn ugly. I feel ugly. I imagine Lauro is ugly. I mean feels ugly as well. No good will come of it.

Happy 4th, anyway.

To JB & all:

Did you read the pro-Byrne article by Rich Johnson about this thread in this week Lying in the gutters?

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=1 3 - http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=1 3

What's he wearing?

Ooh ooh! I know! Is it a "Hello Kitty!" mask?

What did I win?!

Are you Sirius?

(Oh..wait...I see what you did there...)

I base my observations on 35 years of life, just like anyone who's lived that long. I don't have to justify the angle. We're not even talking about abortion or racial issues any more. This is a personal thing with you.

No, it isn't.  I'm still interested in the issues, and I couldn't care less about a personal conflict.  You, on the other hand, ignored about 80% of what I wrote, and launched into a "personal thing" all on your own.  (You can call me Frank, by the way.  Calling someone by his/her last name out of anger has a certain 8th grade gym class feel to it, y'know?)

I'm not sure why you think I'm personally attacking you, either.  I found a lot of what you wrote illogical, inaccurate, and problematic, and explained why.  I also asked you to clarify some of your statements, and you didn't do so in all cases.

My theories are based in disappointment, my analogies ones of despair. But I don't see anything in your "responses" to answer my questions.

That was never my intent.  Look, I'm no happier about the current state of the human race than you are, but I found your "oh, well, let's just have lots of abortions, then" tone to be incredibly pessimistic and short-sighted.  That was my main point.

(Side note to Emery: Get your god damned cameras out of my house, pronto.  I'm not telling you again.)

Yessir. Will do sir. Immediately sir. No need to call the cops. I'm on my way.

BTW Do you want me to get Mike Obrien's cameras out too or will you be allowing him to keep his Naughty Frank-cam in place?

Ayn Rand never ate a hot dog pie.  Make of that what you will.

Are you saying that Ayn Rand lacked the will and perserverance to endure mental strain of consuming Hot dog pie? That she was too pawk bawk chiken to eat one? That in effect hot dog pie was bigger than her? Is hot dog pie the one fatal glaring weakness in objectivism?

I'll bet that David Hume wasn't afraid to eat hot dog pie. He probably looked at it as one more snese impression tha he could build thoughts from. I bet he just sailed right through the hot dog pie barrier and was immediately enlightened as to all hotdog pie matters. And probably Martin Short ate hot dog pie too. While dancing around and over-singing mouldy broadway tunes. On Letterman.

Hot Dog Pie:  Whose side are you on?

*********

I'm with Hebrew National.

But seriously, folks....

I think that the entire "Bad Byrne" phenomenon, if you will, is deeply rooted in the fact that many people who read, enjoy, or just accumulate comic books are exceedingly thin-skinned.  It goes with the way our entire country is attempting to label any non-spontaneous action as offensive.  And if you don't fall into a category that already has a "victimizing cause", then you rally behind a fake name and shout out the injustice that is handy. 

I spoke with a lot of people at the con this weekend and the fact that I post here did come up more than once.  I didn't try to conceal it nor shout it to the heavens, it just came up in conversation about comics.  I received a couple of funny looks from a few people who acted like I should be ashamed (or possibly horse-whipped) for associating myself with the JBF.  One even made the remark that I didn't seem like "the usual sycophants that gather there".  My response was simply to ask them to weigh the entertainment value of lurking on the JBF for ammunition against him versus that of actually reading one of JB's comics.  I didn't try to convince anyone of anything, as that is pointless in today's world, but I did notice that once one of the "sycophants" had a face and could hold a conversation at this person's chosen level, any attitude or negativity took the back-burner. 

I also heard an alleged "Bad Byrne" story, too.  And I have one thing to say about it.  Shame on you for eating lunch when you could have been signing comics, JB!

Pie Nazis.

IMP.

I cannot believe the low level of crap that's allowed to take up bandwith in this thread while my thoughtful post was deleted.

It looks to me like a high level of crap.

IMP.

QUOTE: I cannot believe

Oh you can't?  Well can't help you with that buddy - your beliefs or otherwise are not the issue here.  So why don't you leave the straw man and ad homiem attacks for some other time and answer my question vis a vis the question in hand, hmmm?

QUOTE: the low level of crap

So I suppose you would prefer a high level of crap?  And what have you got against crap anyway?  Many might take offense at your blatant and unnecessary attack on crap.  It's a natural product

QUOTE:  that's allowed to take up bandwith

So you think anything that you don't approve of should be censored?  Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?  There's a little thing in there called the First Amendment that you maybe ought to read, buddy.  Or are you too busy parsing my every word to bother with what is real.  Get a life.

QUOTE: in this thread while my thoughtful post was deleted.

Oh so you posted a thoughtful post?  Well I can't see it - no, wait!  You say it was deleted!  How convenient! Yeah sure...thanks for playing, anyway.

There is just something so . . sweet about someone from the UK evoking our Constitution right after Independence Day (clearly no hard feelings on their side, eh?) ---- my god, I might believe in this whole globalization thing yet!  Go Ian!

Thus, the First Amendment has been turned into a joke, as anyone who wants to can find some nook or fold in its wording into which they imagine they can slip their product. And, alas, there will always be those who are swift to support this, usually bleating comparisons to Nazi Germany (oh, yes, the Nazis are protected, too!) and brandishing scare tactics that suggest a little common sense would lead overnight to repression and book burning.


* When the Founding Fathers chose to include protection of "the press" they meant literally the printing press. They did not use the term as we do today, as slang for newspapers and other such journalism. Those, by virtue of being produced on printing presses were, of course, protected, tho there were still laws of libel and slander to counterbalance the excesses that would, and have been born out of abuse of the First Amendment.

Ian Evans wrote: Are you guys honestly telling me that I didn't overdo it enough so that you got that I was kidding??  Please tell me Glenn got it, at least...!

You did.  I got it.  I got it so much that I got turned around and couldn't tell if THEY were kidding.

John Byrne wrote: It often seems far too little consideration is given to content over format. Thus, the debate becomes over the questions of whether something like CDs are protected (decision says yes), without much thought to whether a rap "song" that encourages the rape and brutalization of women should, indeed, be afforded the same protection as, say, an essay protesting such treatment.

And even further confounding the issue, we have broadened the ban or regulation (through laws like McCain/Feingold) of direct political speech which advocates that an incumbent should be defeated in an imminent election.  It's like a full circle -- we are most protective of speech the framers hadn't even contemplated, but reckless in our protection of the very kind of advocacy they were trying to protec.

By the way red is my favorite color and i like this kind of pull/sweater. When I was ten years old I had one:

I still like it today, maybe i'ld buy one if i find it.

Like I said I love this color.

I don't think this is my dark side, but who knows? We all have one I think:

I may be misunderstanding you, here, but I do not recall anyting in McCain/Feingold that could be thus described. Which part or parts are you referencing?

"Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?  There's a little thing in there called the First Amendment that you maybe ought to read, buddy. "

John -- while of the Declaration is important historically, it is really just a piece of paper [albeit with a hidden map on the back]. I think you mean the constitution.

John Byrne wrote: I may be misunderstanding you, here, but I do not recall anyting in McCain/Feingold that could be thus described. Which part or parts are you referencing?

McCain/Feingold defines as "electioneering communication" as (and I paraphrase) and advertisement which refers to a "clearly identified candidate" within 60 days of a general election, 30 days of a primary.  (Section 201) The 30 to 60 day period is what I referred to as before an imminent election.

Once you fall into the definition of an "electioneering communication," it's virtually impossible to legally fund an ad except one that is paid for by hard money contributions (which favors incumbents tremendously).  Some of the "bans" which contributed to the blackout include -- (1) no "coordination" with a candidate, or else use hard money; (2) no corporation or labor union can be the funder of the ad (this includes non-profit corporations -- virtually every type of legal entity or organization cannot fund an ad that identifies the candidate.  And even if you find a way to do it (say, if you were a wealthy individual), you have to file by name with the federal government that you are doing it.  (See generally the Sections in the 200 series).  There is a link to the text of the law http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/36.pdf - here .

It's a scheme that perpetuates incumbency by making it difficult to mount opposition near an election.  It works as a virtual blackout on "electioneering communications" by making true issue-oriented, organized speech impossible.  I am willing to live with a quite a few schlocky ads in order to uphold the power of the people to try and get incumbents tossed out.  (Or stupid challengers, for that matter).

Scalia's dissent when the law was held constitution is in my opinion of the free speech problems -- Cornell has handy link to Scalia's dissent http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZX.html - here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZX.html -  

http://www.nationalcenter.org/McCainFeingold.html -  

Ian wrote: ...I was kidding??  Please tell me Glenn got it, at least...!

Yep...took me a moment but I finally got it...we're good.

without much thought to whether a rap "song" that encourages the rape and brutalization of women...

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

Informed opinion.  So when Will Smith is not raping white culture, he's singing (Ooops) rapping about raping the bitches and ho's?

Why is that, Emery?

Yep...took me a moment but I finally got it...we're good.

*******

Cheers Glenn(and Jay and JM)...but that has taught me something - as I posted, I was conscious of the problems of tone we sometimes have, so made sure that I was as outrageously OTT as I could be - and yet still could be taken as serious, despite the post being based on nothing that you had said, nor that we had argued about, etc etc

And I thought I was being dead funny too...

Wallace, because Will Smith is viewed as an MTV pop-music, dance club, sitcom, kid-pleasing entertainer who is imitating the "real important" rappers(whoever they may be at any given time) to sell singles and is not viewed as being representative of "real" rap.

And the people in question wouldn't actually beat you up physically but you could start a pretty heated conversation talking about Will Smith and Rap and there would be a lot of head shaking and someone would go out to the car and come back with a Tupac CD and blast it until I told them to turn it down(becuase I am the official low end corporate buzkill on the night shift).

To them calling will Smith a rapper would be like calling bubblegum and jelly beans a hearty meal.

To them calling will Smith a rapper would be like calling bubblegum and jelly beans a hearty meal.

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

Strangely, Emery. Will was rapping before many of the people who insist he isn't a rapper were themselves rappers or even rap fans.  But I know what you mean.  Will's record label during the 90's (Sony?) told him to give it up when they dropped him in 2001 or so.

In a related matter: since some worship at the alter of informed opinions, it's important that one really know what the boom shaka they're talking about.  So name a rap song or track or whatever that specifically encourages the rape and brutalization of women in general or of a specific woman or a "kind of woman."

Some don't want to be called racist but they're sure quick to denegrate black artists, entertainers, and popular culture.  God Bless.

The Wayne Brady of Rappers?

Good God. What an image!

No fair, Matt. Not only did you answer the challenge with a good example, you further blew his point by using and Eminem song.  (Eminem is white for those of you scoring at home).

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

My point is not blown at all.  It shows that Matt could make the statement about rap artists and violent content towards women and know what the **** he's talking about.

It's the ones who generalize about rap and don't know shit about rap that I'm talking about.  Holla!  Now, blow on that!

I'm officially out of control.

What exactly is hot dog pie?

###############

see hot dog pie thread

[Will Smith has] had that baggage from the start.  I was in college when "Parents Just Don't Understand" came out, and from the get-go people where saying he didn't have genuine street-cred.

I guess it's a question of who's talking the loudest and what voices a person chooses to accept as credible.  Smith has always been a valid, respected voice in Hip Hop to those with any sense of its history.

Ah, but Eminem WANTS to be black!

I think I know you meant this in jest, but there are too many people out there who actually believe it to be true.

Ian Evans: as I posted, I was conscious of the problems of tone we sometimes have, so made sure that I was as outrageously OTT as I could be

Hey, there's nothing wrong with that!  I do it all the time...

"Guilty Conscience" is more ABOUT rape and murder than IN FAVOR OF rape and murder.

Yes, I'm an Eminem fan - because I truly think he hates himself, and I can relate to that.

Early nomination for "Most Unhelpful Post."

i just like to thank jay for this nomination and.....sniff! ...i like to thank my wife for those horriable ....hot dog pies........again thank you very much,,,,sniff! ....this means so much !!..............

Is the coast clear to criticize rap without being considered racist?

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

Not quite (Hee Hee).

As for Eminem, I've never thought he wanted to be black.  He ended up being associated with a lot of black people just by being involved in rap.  He doesn't come across as a poser on stage or during interviews (where posing would be obvious).

Smith has always been a valid, respected voice in Hip Hop to those with any sense of its history.

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

No.  From the beginning, there have been fans, industry players, critics, reviewers who didn't consider Smith a valid hip hop artist - Eminem being one of them.  Is he part of hip hop history?  Yes.  Is he a valid hip hop artist?  I guess that an informed opinon.  I think he is, but clearly there were and still are those who think otherwise.  That's just the nature of the thing.  Some don't consider Ja Rule valid...

"...to those with any sense of history."

(Oh, and Eminem had nothing but positive things to say about Will Smith up until the point when Smith made a comment about not having to curse or be negative in his songs to sell records.  Mathers took it as a direct attack on the type of music he does and responded with a verbal assault of his own.  I have never read or heard anything that would indicate Eminem felt that Will Smith was not a valid Hip Hop artist.)

So, of course, I long ago abandoned any attempt to couch my posts in PC phrasing. The combination of herd mentality and auto-contrarianism strips some people of anything even approaching independent thought, so trying to phrase a comment so that its meaning will actually get thru to them is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble.

Takes too long to type. Threnace?

Wallace, I didn't mean to make it seem Em vs. Will.  Maybe they're big fans of each other's work.  Whatever.

But there are clearly people with a sense of history who don't consider Will a valid hip hop artist even though he raps and has sold many, many records doing so.  And this isn't revisionist history.  From the moment he hit the national charts, people were dogging him and kept on.

Of course, some of it is jealousy.  He crossed over as a recording artist and that makes for bitter feelings (to which Nelly can attest).  I can't even describe what Will has done as an actor and movie star - seeing that he began as a rapper.