John hauls out yet another old lie

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

John Byrne has several popular lies he likes to tell about me. One of his favorites jus resurfaced over on his board in a thread about whether the internet has ruined comics, in which he responds to the following set-up line–

“Wasn’t the ending to Alpha Flight #12 spoiled at a comic convention by another comic professional?”

–with the following lie:

“Peter David handed out xeroxes of Guardian’s death at a con about a month before the book shipped.”

Nnnnnno. A popular lie of John’s, but no. Number one, it wasn’t at a convention; it was at a get-together for retailers. Number two, it wasn’t Guardian’s death. It was an unlettered two page dream sequence in which Heather was seeing a dessicated Guardian tearing out the ground. Number three, it was part of a package of about two dozen photocopied highlights from assorted Marvel titles. Number four, the material in question was handed to me by Denny O’Neil, the book’s editor when I–in my capacity as sales manager at the time–was going around collecting material to put into the package. And when I said to him, “Are you sure you want me to include this in the material?” Denny replied, “Sure, what’s the harm?” Number five, retailers at the get together had no idea that the sequence actually indicated that Guardian really died. I know this because when John showed up at the get-together, he looked at the material, screamed at me at the top of his lungs, “How could you be showing this to retailers?!? It gives away the fact that Guardian dies!” and stormed out of the room, slowing only long enough to kick over a standing ashtray on his way out. At which point stunned retailers said, “Guardian DIES?,” started looking at the xeroxes again, and were muttering, “I thought it was just a dream sequence…”

Set your watches. I’m sure John will be hauling out the equally fun “Peter David was so stupid he had a character fall to his death underwater” lie sometime within the next six months. That’s one of his favorites.

PAD

470 comments on “John hauls out yet another old lie”

  1. That’s almost, but not quite, as cool as having all the Blind Dead films released last Christmas in that nifty coffin/box set and hearing that the one that didn’t make the set is coming out soon.

    You know, what gets me about the blind dead is this…ok, so their eyes have rotted away and they can’t see, fine. But they don;t have EARS either, yet they can hear just jimmy crack dandy. WTF? Of course, the idiots in these movies make it pretty easy, what with the screaming and all.

    It’s a little hypocritical for PAD to go lurking on the Byrne site where obviously people, especially Mr. Byrne are going to have a differing opinion and then proceed to get his sizeable panties in a wad. If he takes his own advice he wouldn’t be over there spying anyway. Right PADdy?

    Well, I think there’s a mighty big difference. PAD isn’t going over there and starting trouble. THAT would be hypocritical. Not wanting what he says are lies being told about him, which make him look unprofessional at best and possibly deliberately vindictive at worst is another thing entirely.

    Byrne seems to believe that he has been professionally hurt by lies told about him. Surely he and his fans can understand that other professionals would not want to suffer the same fate. Forget for the moment who you believe. Why should PAD not try to set the record straight. Silence would almost certainly be interpreted as an admission of guilt by many.

  2. You missed my whole point. If PAD wasn’t over there ‘lurking’ on a site where Byrne obviously is putting out opinions that are different from PAD’s own he wouldn’t need to respond to it anyway. My whole point was the fact that PAD insults a guy and tells him to get lost for saying that he likes to read the threads here posted by PAD and others but has a difference of opinion (what a crime)… Then PAD goes and gets lathered up at an opinion posted at his arch-enemy’s website (or is that the Toddler). HYPOCRITICAL. PAD’s message was to stay off his website if you have an opinion contrary to his. PAD should do the same. Stay off of Byrne’s. Andthe only 2 people that know the real truth are PAD and Byrne. I mean really, PAD seems to be morally outraged by comments by Byrne (among others) on a regular basis. I say quit cryin’. Especiallly on something so trivial as whether PAD gave away a story ending. Why be concerned about that? That’s RETARDED.

  3. And to Bill M. one more thing, the person that I was speaking of wasn’t ‘starting trouble’ He had a difference of opinion and was very ignorantly berated for it.

  4. Is it just me, or did anybody else have the “What, does he want this to be Law and Order?” reaction to Trevor’s outtahere like Vladimir post above? Hey, I’d like to see ANYBODY prove ANYTHING from twenty years ago face to face, let alone on a blog. Unfortunately for my arguement, there are school pictures of me that prove my affinity for odd haircuts has been with me a while. Put it this way, I used to look sorta like what would happen if you put Flock of Seagulls in a microwave.
    And Blake–you’ve fallen into the Hannity method of debating, well, stepped in it, anyway. Don’t just lift convenient facts, tell the whole story. As I recall, the person in question wasn’t really expressing an opinion so much as trying to get a reaction by resorting to the Python Argument Clinic Method, pretty much saying the opposite of whatever else is said. First off, at least if you’re going to use this arguement, get your facts, IE, who was being spoken to, which thread, etc. For example, the initial post was made by Anonymous Internet Jerks on the Kiss of Death thread. AIJ’s handle came from the Colbert On Notice thread, and any of his posts really offered only a little in the way of constructive conversation, while the rest of his long-winded diatribes (y’know, like I’m doing now) seemed to be aimed at just inciting reactions.

    Bill–you’re okay with the Blind Dead’s eyes rotting away, but you have problems with their ears being gone. Gonna go out on a limb, here, and think you don’t have a problem with them being, well, dead. Gotta love the zombies. Long as I don’t have to smell ’em. Or clean up after ’em.

  5. “I say quit cryin’. Especiallly on something so trivial as whether PAD gave away a story ending. Why be concerned about that? That’s RETARDED.”

    And yet Byrne feels the need to bring it up 22 years after the fact. I could call Byrne many things, but not so much retarded. But hey whatever floats your boat man.

    JAC

  6. I think this whole argument should be stopped because byrne hasent written anything worthwhile in the last say what, 20 years?

  7. What kind of amazes me is that Mr. Byrne harbors these bad feelings towards an incident that happened on a book that he wishes he never did.

    From his FAQ:
    “Alpha Flight was never much fun. The characters were created merely to survive a fight with the X-Men, and I never thought about them having their own title. When Marvel finally cajoled me into doing Alpha Flight, I realized how incredibly two-dimensional they were, and spend some twenty-eight issues trying to find ways to correct this fault. Nothing really sang for me. If I have any regrets, it would probably be that I did the book at all! It was not a good time for me.”

    I can understand him being upset at the time, I’m sure that I would have been upset as well. But this happened over 20 years ago to a book that by his own admission wasn’t enjoyable for him to do.

    I think, and I make this suggestion in all seriousness, that Mr. Byrne could benefit from some type of therapy to help him release all the anger he’s still holding inside.

  8. Posted by insideman

    What Peter’s NOT telling you (and I bet this is true)– he remembers the incident in such detail that I bet he can even tell you what Byrne was wearing when it happened.

    Of course he can.

    Green plaid lumberjack shirt.

  9. “In one of his recent columns, I believe Larsen now says the person who talked to Byrne must have been a backgroiund man on the Savage Dragon cartoon”

    Byrne never implied that he was talking about anything else than the Savage Dragon comic book.

    Sorry. Still a lie.

    In what appears to be a quest to obfuscate the truth, JBF member and Denny O’Neil forum moderator prohibited *any* questions regarding this posted on Denny’s forum:

    “The John Byrne/Peter David/Denny O’Neil Alpha Flight “debate” will NOT be held here at the O’Neil Forum.

    Please DO NOT post any questions regarding this issue.”

    http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1710

  10. Interesting. Before it was deleted, a poster asked O’Neil about his version of something Byrne had told his flock a little while back.

    He claims O’Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O’Neil told him he wasn’t interested and then a few months later O’Neil creates a new asian Batgirl.

    I guess Mr. Hansel doesn’t want that talked about either. He’s a good friend to Byrne. Not so much to O’Neil, I guess.

  11. I find it interesting that almost every forumer on Byrne’s board concedes they had no idea of the spoiler being released to the general public. All other accusations aside, this is very telling. How much damage was done if the majority of fans, including the die hard Byrne fans, failed to take much notice? I ended up posting a couple more times. It seemed there was a growing potential for misinterpretation that certain forumers, myself included, had taken it upon themselves to call Denny O’Neil a liar. I wanted to assure (on both forums) that this was not the case. At least one forumer has pointed out how John Byrne’s sequence of events MIGHT make sense, which is certainly an improvement over the sheer venom they had been misdirecting previously. No one there seems to be interested or able to explain why someone in PAD’s position at the time would be allowed free reign as suggested that he was. As previously discussed, the idea that this was deemed acceptable behavior for a relationship between marketing and editorial baffles me. Under this vision, I cannot fathom how anyone completed any work. This makes the notion a difficult one to swallow. But if we take it at face value, and assume that Byrne’s version is 100% correct in this regard, I STILL don’t understand why he would be angry at PAD as an individual. At worst, we have an honest difference of opinion as to what would make for the best marketing. And that is working under the assumption that the worst of what Byrne has to say is accurate. If it’s not accurate, the scenario only exonerates Peter more. So we go from a mild difference of opinion over a scenario with minimal to no lasting effects and move on up to an even less fractious scenario from there. So why the anger? Again, it makes no sense regardless of any internal consistency. And without Byrne willing to elevate himself beyond petty insults to level where he can discuss this topic politely, I can only assume that this is a case of misguided aggression.

    Bill Myers: I think we supported each others positions quite nicely. It likely would not have been as well executed if it had been planned.

  12. You missed my whole point. If PAD wasn’t over there ‘lurking’ on a site where Byrne obviously is putting out opinions that are different from PAD’s own he wouldn’t need to respond to it anyway. My whole point was the fact that PAD insults a guy and tells him to get lost for saying that he likes to read the threads here posted by PAD and others but has a difference of opinion (what a crime)… Then PAD goes and gets lathered up at an opinion posted at his arch-enemy’s website (or is that the Toddler). HYPOCRITICAL. PAD’s message was to stay off his website if you have an opinion contrary to his. PAD should do the same. Stay off of Byrne’s.

    No, I get your point. I just disagree with it. You don’t mention the name or thread of the person who got booted off so I can’t go back and check the veracity of what you say but that’s not entirely the point–there’s a world of difference between lurking on a board just waiting for the opportunity to snipe at the guy running it and reading a board run by someone who has, in one’s opinion, a habit of spreading falsehoods about one’s self.

    I also question the premise of your belief that PAD runs off people if they disagree with him. I present myself as evidence to the contrary. I may not be getting any Christmas cards but I haven’t seen any characters with my name murdered horribly in FALLEN ANGEL (though that would be GREAT!).

    Bill–you’re okay with the Blind Dead’s eyes rotting away, but you have problems with their ears being gone. Gonna go out on a limb, here, and think you don’t have a problem with them being, well, dead.

    Well, duh!

  13. Blake is talking about “Anonymous Internet Jerks” on the “Kiss of Death” thread. And the two situations are hardly comparable, because AIJ was complaining about the board discussing Lieberman’s primary defeat rather than the British airplane plot (and called everyone “delusional nuts” and the situation “flat out scary”). If PAD had gone on the Byrne board to call its posters idiots for wanting to discuss Internet spoilers in comics rather than, say, Marvel’s “Civil War” delays, that would be hypocritical.

    AIJ didn’t say “he likes to read the threads here posted by PAD and others but has a difference of opinion”. He came to complain about the very existence of the topic under discussion (as if he had been forced to read it against his will or something). Hardly the same thing at all.

  14. I propose that, in order to avoid the “L word” which upsets him so, we henceforth refer to any of the tales J.B. tells as “Byrne Retcons.”

    -Rex Hondo-

  15. My guess would be at least regarding Denny that as it is his board if he wanted to post on the subject, he could. The mod is not trying to hide that this debate is happening, he is saying he wants it kept between the parties that are currently involved.

    But since the note is posted at the top of Denny’s board, it’s safe to say Denny is aware of it in at least some form and doesn’t want to comment either a) not being sure or b) not wanting to irritate either party. Given the age and the timeframe of the incident, this is probably a smart, safe thing for Denny and completely understandable (as I think both Byrne and PAD would agree).

    As to the incident itself, I’ll admit PAD’s events are certainly more logical on it’s face, but not being aware of how Marvel Sales worked at the time, perhaps Peter could explain how any artwork was selected for photocopied previews for the public (not the AF pages in ?).

    As a 12 year old reader at the time of the book in San Antonio Texas who actually had a Comics Buyer’s Guide subscription at the time, I was still surprised at the ending choice (and disappointed since Guardian was my favorite character in the book, and boy did Byrne’s stuff lose steam after Issue 13 of the title which would support his thought of unhappiness with the title).

    My guess is that Byrne’s perception comes something like this: Byrne is at said fan event, he meets the person who mentions the whole Guardian thing realizes that most of the people he met that day knew the ending and blows his stack. Of course the reason the ending is known is that said retailers told one of his employees and or close friend/customers who then proceeded to send it on to other fans, etc.

    Because, you know, at a comic convention, everyone keeps everything they know about the business to themselves.

    Anyway Byrne is pìššëd, believes that if it is happening in front of him, it must be a nationwide thing (since of course the internet was everywhere in 1984 and all this news spread like lightning back in the day). And of course, like the 100,000+ sports fans who claimed to be at Chamberlain’s 100 point game (actual attendance at the game approx 3800), retro history has people telling him at various cons across the country that they could see it coming and that “of course” they knew because no true comic fan is ever out of the know.

    John seems to be the type to hold a grudge so this has just grown from there. At least that is my interpretation. I may be wrong.

  16. kurt –
    Some of you might recognize my name

    I’d have to say that it’s the link to Goatriders.org that really gives you away. 🙂

    From reading your entries on that site, and your followups in the comments (like with the recent Santo situation), you’re obviously an upstanding guy, but the response you’ve received on Byrne’s site is pretty typical – it doesn’t matter who you are, if you’re not a Byrnebot, you’re nobody.

    Btw, if there are any Cubs fans here who need a place to lament how much the Cubs totally suck, head on over to Goatriders.org to find solace… or at least some good humor. 🙂

  18. Whee! My very own internet! 😛

    Not to jump head-first into a can of worms before heading off to bed, but something struck me as I was reading the thread over on Byrne’s site that I don’t think anybody has touched on yet. One of the “points” that Byrne and his supporters are harping on is that, supposedly, Byrne’s story has remained consistent over the decades, while (also supposedly) PAD’s has varied somewhat. They point to that as evidence that Byrne’s version is the truth.

    Now, I’m no psychologist or anything, but it seems to me that the story that doesn’t change AT ALL over the years is not necessarily any more true, just much better rehearsed.

    -Rex Hondo-

  19. I was 15 in 1984 and I can honestly say that I didn’t know about Guardian’s death at the time. I remember hearing that a member was going to die, but didn’t know who.

    Two things that really irk me at this debate. One is the circle the wagons mentality of the byrnebots. If Byrne says O’Neil told him X, then that’s what happened. If X is wrong, the only possibility is that O’Neil is a liar. Not that Byrne is lying or just misunderstood or is misremembering something 20+ years after the fact. No. Byrne said it, so it must be true.

    The other is the apparent conspiracy of silence to keep anyone from asking O’Neil for his take on the situation. Now, if I were him, no way would I touch this debate with a ten foot pole. My only response would be, “It was over 20 years ago! Who cares now?” But the idea that one of his moderators is actively blocking attempts to ask him and at the same time insists that O’Neil would support Byrne’s version of events, kind of rings hollow to me.

    If Byrne’s word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O’Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

  20. L. Walker: “I think we supported each others positions quite nicely. It likely would not have been as well executed if it had been planned.”

    Perhaps. If someone had asked me last week what I would be doing this week, however, I don’t think “touching off a firestorm within Byrne Robotics” would’ve been anywhere on the list.

    Although, really, John himself touched off the firestorm by recounting the story yet again. When backed against a wall by the tough questions you asked, Landry, rather than address them he grabbed desperately for a life preserver labeled “either you believe me or Denny O’Neil is lying but no one will be allowed to broach the subject with him,” and that life preserver turned out to be defective. He remains defiant, but has lost the argument, another notch of what’s left of his credibility, and the hearts and minds of a few of his regular posters.

    This cycle has happened to him before and will happen again unless he changes, which I tend to think is unlikely.

    Anyway, I stand by what I said to the man in his forum: he disappoints me. His arrogance, his condescension, his penchant for disparaging fellow creators without real evidence to back up his accusations, his proclivity for insulting even his fans… it is sad.

    And it is now leaving my radar screen. I will not be going back to Byrne Robotics, ever, because there is nothing of value there. And while I’m sure John in his self-centric world will envision me as one of the “Sad Boys” with naught to do but bash him in order to look “kewl,” the fact is I will go back to thinking about and speaking of John Byrne about as frequently as before: almost never.

    I will likely be maintaining “radio silence” for a few days. My girlfriend and I have a cat named Albert who has been ill for about six months, and yesterday his condition took a nosedive. In less than an hour my girlfriend and I will take him to the vet to be euthanized.

    My beautiful girlfriend, Jeannie, has had this cat for 15 1/2 years. I’ve known this cat for as long as I’ve known Jeannie (five years). We are dreading the thought of living in a post-Albert world, but that’s the price you pay for bonding with these short-lived yet wonderful creatures.

    Take care, all. Unfortunately for all of you, I’ll be back in a few days, because I really like this cyber-joint. 🙂

  21. I was 15 in 1984 and I can honestly say that I didn’t know about Guardian’s death at the time. I remember hearing that a member was going to die, but didn’t know who.

    Two things that really irk me at this debate. One is the circle the wagons mentality of the byrnebots. If Byrne says O’Neil told him X, then that’s what happened. If X is wrong, the only possibility is that O’Neil is a liar. Not that Byrne is lying or just misunderstood or is misremembering something 20+ years after the fact. No. Byrne said it, so it must be true.

    The other is the apparent conspiracy of silence to keep anyone from asking O’Neil for his take on the situation. Now, if I were him, no way would I touch this debate with a ten foot pole. My only response would be, “It was over 20 years ago! Who cares now?” But the idea that one of his moderators is actively blocking attempts to ask him and at the same time insists that O’Neil would support Byrne’s version of events, kind of rings hollow to me.

    If Byrne’s word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O’Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

  22. If Byrne’s word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O’Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

    Which is an amusing part of this whole thing. PAD has been called out here for not having evidence to back up his side of the story.

    Yet, one of the Byrnebots has outright blocked attempts by posters here to get such evidence, one way or the other. But that just means PAD is still wrong, of course.

    It’s just mind boggling to think that some of these guys think they exist on the same wavelength as the rest of us.

  23. If Byrne’s word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O’Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

    Which is an amusing part of this whole thing. PAD has been called out here for not having evidence to back up his side of the story.

    Yet, one of the Byrnebots has outright blocked attempts by posters here to get such evidence, one way or the other. But that just means PAD is still wrong, of course.

    It’s just mind boggling to think that some of these guys think they exist on the same wavelength as the rest of us.

  24. Craig, are you thinking that Byrne doth protest too much? Sure seems that he is to me. I don’t know. I’m still trying to figger out how the whole “internet ruining comics” theme turned into “PAD handed out xeroxes and ruined my surprise and needs to be banished to a desert island” theme.

    Bill, you and Jeannie have my deepest sympathies. I know what it can be like to lose someone in the family like that. (And yes, I think of my “pets” as family.) Wish I knew something to say to make it easier.

  25. “As to the incident itself, I’ll admit PAD’s events are certainly more logical on it’s face, but not being aware of how Marvel Sales worked at the time, perhaps Peter could explain how any artwork was selected for photocopied previews for the public (not the AF pages in ?).”

    Generally it was collaborative. I’d go to the various editorial offices looking for artwork I could use in solicits. Covers were generally preferred so that retailers would have an idea of what the books were going to look like on the stands. If covers weren’t available, the editors (or their assistants) would provide me with interior art…preferably splash pages or large panel shots, because since we had to reduce stuff in size, we wanted something that would be easily visible.

    Art was never removed from an office without it being given to us by someone in that office. Never. And I always took the art to the stat room to be reduced. Now…were there times when art walked out of the stat room? Yeah, there were. I know because on occasion an editor came looking for it. But I didn’t generally have artwork in my office, so I always referred them to the stat room. Why they always came to me anyway when my procedure was exactly the same, I couldn’t begin to guess.

    PAD

  27. Someone on the Byrne board wrote:

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

    1) Yes, he circulated the xeroxes but they weren’t of Guardian’s death — they just showed Guardian dead and JB himself blew the spoiler. However, JB states that he only “blew the spoiler” because a fan said he now knew what happened — in other words, the spoiler was blown.”

    See, that’s where the lack of imagination on the Byrnebots’ part comes in. They can’t conceive of the notion that John lied about that. They can’t parse the concept that it was impossible for it to have transpired the way that John claims it did because it was at a retailer get-together, not a fan gathering, and fairly early on in the evening at that. There was no table for John to be at (and for a fan to come to) because no dealer’s room was open, obviously. Why obviously? Because if we scheduled a retailer get together while the dealer’s room was open, the retailers working the dealer’s room wouldn’t be able to attend. So obviously John could not have been at a dealer’s room table, receiving the photocopy the way he claims he did. There was no fan to bring a photocopy to John because no fan had them.

    They simply can’t open the door, even a little crack, to the concept that it happened the way I said it did: That it was a retailer gathering, that John strolled in, greeted me cordially, made chit chat with retailers, went over to where the photocopies were, looked at pages that were NOT Guardian’s death, and threw a bellowing hissyfit in the middle of the room that alerted the retailers to a fact they were not previously aware of. Even though my account makes more sense. My account allows for human error and human foibles. John’s version allows for one thing and one thing only: I was a loose cannon and art thief, sneaking out artwork and distributing it to fans for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. Mine is shades of gray with fallible human beings who meant well; his is black and white with victims and villains.

    Small wonder that–no insult intended–Byrne fans would embrace his account. It sounds like a comic book plot, and thus is comfortable.

    I never removed artwork from an editorial office without sanction. Never. If I walked into an office looking for artwork and no one was there, I walked back out and returned when someone was.

    John Byrne–who demonstrably lied about “Atlantis Chronicles,” who demonstrably lied about “SM 2099 #1”–will doubtless say that’s a lie.

    PAD

  28. “No, we wrote “Attn: Stan Lee!”

    At the time you didn’t think that was funny at all.”

    Yeah, I can imagine I wouldn’t have…especially if it was sitting out and Stan happened to be in town and walk past. Not a likelihood, I’ll admit, but remotely possible.

    The reason I guessed it had something to do with damages was that we were locked in a death battle at the time with a distributor/retailer who was sending back perfectly good boxes of comics claiming they were damaged. And when I was refusing to accept them as damaged, he actually started a letter writing campaign among his customers telling them to go after me. So if there was anything at the time I had zero sense of humor about, it was damages.

    I suppose the Stan Lee joke wasn’t sufficiently traumatic for me to recall. So that’s a good thing, I guess.

    PAD

  29. “John seems to be the type to hold a grudge so this has just grown from there. “

    And the award for understatement of the year goes to (opens envelope)Erik Merk

    clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

    Next up the award for best outburst at a con 22 years ago goes to….

  30. a “distributor/retailer” hmm…I was gonna do a joke based on the “eye tracks” line, naming him, but I won’t as it appears you’d like to not envoke it.

  31. “I was a loose cannon and art thief, sneaking out artwork and distributing it to fans for the purposes of self-aggrandizement.”

    This statement mekes me picture PAD in an all black outfit in a darkened marvel office at 3 AM standing over a photocopier giggling to himself.

    Also how before this statement is circulated by itself out of context as an admission of guilt? I only ask because I hate when drama goes to the next level and I miss it.

    JAC

  32. Byrne never implied that he was talking about anything else than the Savage Dragon comic book.

    Sorry. Still a lie.

    *****
    Not necessarily. For example, the alleged “background man” may not have made the distinction between the cartoon, and the comic. That would then make Byrne wrong, or misleading, but not through a lie he was telling.

    Anyway, I just gave you Eric Larsen’s position on it.

  33. Aw thanks Jeff, I’d like to thank the academy. I just love message board posting. I love message board posters. I love being in a room where message boarders can congregate and post messages for the whole world to see. It just makes me proud to be a message board poster.

    Sorry, I like Jeremy Piven but the whole love-in of loving acting and stuff (Bradley Whitford too) just revs up my sarcasm engine.

    Anyway, thanks PAD for the explanation. So certainly given this was the Shooter/Kalish era of Marvel’s history, it’s safe to say the editorial constraints were a bit strong on the staff from my knowledge of the time, so how does Byrne explain this seeming basic contradiction? Say what you will about Shooter’s history at Marvel, the idea that he would not routinely have some sort of checks and balances in place on a retailer packet that Carol had to enforce seems asinine on its face. I know, he doesn’t, which is why I’m posting this here instead of there (figure not much point in posting something to see it deleted 3 minutes later).

    Again, my guess is that since the Mod put something on the board stating that Denny’s board isn’t the place for this, it seems logical (since we all here are using logic) that Denny is aware and doesn’t want to get dragged into it. After all he can read the post by the mod the same as we can and could choose not to listen (it is his board after all). And I imagine he could find either here or the Byrne Board and put his thoughts on the matter out there if he were so inclined and if, for some strange reason, he wasn’t able to post on his own. Denny’s choice in the matter and we should all respect it.

  34. Denny O’Neil only checks his messageboard once every few weeks. It’s likely he has no idea what’s going on right now.

    Maybe when he does check his board he may post something about it.

  35. Peter, please do yourself a favor and put this from your mind. By continuing to comment on it you’re only dragging it out further. Anyone who chooses to believe JB is not going to be swayed regardless of what you say and I think you are only giving JB what he wants at this point by continuing to give him attention about this.

    It’s stupid, it’s foolish and it’s was a long time ago. You have a wife and children, your work and your fans – count those as blessings and leave this bitter, angry person to his tirades. You would be better served trying to move a mountain, it would most likely be easier. Walk away, it’s not worth the aggravation or your effort.

  36. John Byrne will doubtless say that’s a lie.

    Come to think of it, I can easily imagine Byrne coming around a pillar ala Grima Wormtongue in The Two Towers saying exactly that line, then using his bots (ala Grima’s thugs) to do his dirty work.

    In the end, I find this whole thing amusing (and it beats talking about Bush), and Byrne certainly isn’t coming off looking like the good guy in this, even if his version were How It Really Happened. It sounds like a What If in the making.

  37. “He claims O’Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O’Neil told him he wasn’t interested and then a few months later O’Neil creates a new asian Batgirl.”

    When and where did he say that? I’d be interested to know.

    PAD

  38. My God. John really CAN’T admit when he’s wrong. Walker mentioned John’s misuse of “peaked/piqued” and he replied:

    ***

    “Peaked” means to reach a maximum point. Try again.”

    He can’t distinguish between the sentences “His interest had peaked,” which he didn’t say, and “that piqued your interest,” which he tried to say but said incorrectly.

    Those people who claim John Byrne needs therapy are wrong. He needs an eighth grade English teacher.

    PAD

  39. “Come to think of it, I can easily imagine Byrne coming around a pillar ala Grima Wormtongue in The Two Towers saying exactly that line, then using his bots (ala Grima’s thugs) to do his dirty work.”

    Byrne cringes away from PAD, and hisses at his cronies, “You were supposed to take his word processor”

    OK, not as dramatic as the scene from two towers, but hey, not everything can be comedy gold!

    JAC

  40. Craig J Riles: I’d have to say that it’s the link to Goatriders.org that really gives you away. 🙂

    Hey, small net! I probably shouldn’t be surprised that someone from this forum is a reader of Goat Riders, and I appreciate the kind words about the website and myself.

    And, uh, ::plug mode:: yeah, feel free to head over to the site. At the very least, sports fans might enjoy the photoshops, if not the wry humor and commentary.

  42. kurt –
    Craig J Riles

    Sorry, but I have to nag you about this: I hate when people spell my name wrong, more so when it’s right above my post. So, no ‘L’ in there. It’s why I usually just copy/paste when quoting others, so I don’t screw it up. 😉

    Scavenger –
    This Goat riders thing…it doesn’t sound very work safe…

    Heh. Actually, it’s quite safe. The name comes from the fact that many believe the Chicago Cubs suffer from the Curse of the Billy Goat (long story, goes back decades).

    So, it’s just not safe if your boss doesn’t like you reading up on sports while on the job.

    They’ve got a great logo to go with the name of the place, too. 🙂

  43. Scavenger – Hah. Goat Riders of the Apocalypse is a Chicago Cubs blog that I created a few years ago. The name comes from two things – the alleged Goat Curse of the Cubs during the ’45 World Series (they have yet to return) and the belief that if the Cubs ever win a World Series, it will bring about the apocalypse.

    Back when I created the site, I actually thought that the Cubs were capable of winning the World Series… these days, we just write jokes about how bad they are.

  44. “He claims O’Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O’Neil told him he wasn’t interested and then a few months later O’Neil creates a new asian Batgirl.”

    When and where did he say that? I’d be interested to know.

    John Byrne
    Byrne Robotics CEO

    Robot Wrangler

    Joined: May 11 2005
    Location: United States
    Posts: 23775 Posted: July 27 2006 at 7:17am | IP Logged

    Under the heading of “Sufficient Water Under that Bridge” — I came across a reference to the bat being a symbol of good luck in certain Asian cultures. Inspired by this, I put together a pitch for a teenage Asian Batgirl. This was rejected by the Bat-editor of the time. A few months later, under the same editor. . .

  45. In one of his recent columns, I believe Larsen now says the person who talked to Byrne must have been a backgroiund man on the Savage Dragon cartoon

    “And then it dawned on me.

    Savage Dragon was a cartoon. This guy must have drawn backgrounds for the Savage Dragon cartoon and when he said that he drew backgrounds for the Savage Dragon, this grizzled pro assumed that that meant the Savage Dragon comic book. Mystery solved. “

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=ofo&article=2546

    *****

    Still another in a long line of situations where John Byrne could not be counted on to GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT before making unsubstantiated accusations about other professionals.

    Another example of this from just the other day, him asking what the Olsen Twins were thinking when they got those horribly faked implants they were proudly displaying at some party… hurling accusations based on an obviously faked photo.

    That’s Byrne. He doesn’t take three seconds to figure out if the story makes any sense, he just assumes the worst and blasts away. This is the man whose judgment is being called into question, whose perception of reality is not particularly keen, whose willingness to criticize is often based on simple, easily avoided misunderstandings.

    And after so long, this is simple willfullness. He should have realized long, long ago that he does this, but instead of adjusting, he digs his heels in, refuses to apologize, and continues to distort reality (aka lying) to try to “prove” he was right in some way, even when it’s proved he’s wrong. He didn’t lie about Roy Thomas, he acted as a parrot… yeah, right, like you didn’t delight in repeating the story *with* a personal insult added (“I’d say it to his face, only I’d have to stoop because he’s so short”).

  46. Craig, don’t picture John as Wormtongue, it’s much more fun to picture PAD as either Steve McQueen or Pierce Brosnan in the Thomas Crown Affair. You know, suave art thief who flies to islands with hot women? Y’know, stealing Byrne art then fooling everyone and flying to tropical islands with hot women.

  48. I envision him more the silent movie villain, twirling his mustache, while an issue of Alpha Flight lies helpless on the tracks, screaming.

  49. Sean, thanks for your kind words. The house seems really empty now without Albert. He was a wonderful cat.

    I know I said I’d be maintaining “radio silence,” but I could really use a diversion.

    Landry, I admire your fortitude and stamina. I’ve been tempted to renege on my vow and chime in in support of you at Byrne Robotics but decided better of it.

    Why?

    In one of my posts at Byrne Robotics, I used a sports analogy, and I’ll repeat it here for those who didn’t read it.

    Some years ago, an NFL team was losing a game by a whoppingly big margin. In “garbage time” (for those of you who have no interest in sports, that’s vernacular for the final minutes of a game where the score is so lopsided that nothing the losing team can do has a prayer of changing the outcome), someone on the losing team scored a touchdown and began celebrating in the endzone.

    Then someone from the winning team poked the football out of his hands and pointed at the scoreboard.

    In my post at Byrne Robotics, I compared John to the player from this true story. But as things have progressed, I’ve realized that the analogy doesn’t go far enough.

    So let’s imagine something: what if the player from the losing team had refused to acknowledge what was on the scoreboard and insisted, “No, we’re winning and you’re losing!”

    And the day after the game, he continued to make this ridiculous assertion, as did some of his fans. The referees, the newspapers, and the offices of the National Football League where the records are kept, had all correctly recorded that his team lost the game based on the only rational measure of such a thing: the score. But he and some diehard fans continued to insist that the losing team had in fact won, and allowed no amount of reality to budge them from their pleasant world of denial.

    That, folks, is John. He’s lost the argument on every level and everyone with an ounce of sense knows it, but he continues to maintain that his loss is in fact a victory.

    “If you don’t believe me, you’re calling Denny O’Neil a liar.” Nope, no good. Because there’s no record of Denny saying a dámņ thing about this. So Denny’s honesty: not at issue. Nothing to hide behind there.

    “It’s indisputable that PAD knew he was giving away the dramatic reveal.” Not true. Very disputable. PAD claims the pages didn’t give it away, and besides, HE CHECKED WITH THE EDITOR.

    “It’s no excuse to say ‘I was just following orders.'” Well, in addition to how crass that is given that PAD IS JEWISH AND IT’S NO SECRET, it’s also stupid. PAD wasn’t “following orders” when he took Denny O’Neil at his word that there would be no harm in showing the pages in question. He was deferring to the judgment of someone in a position to know whether or not there was a potential for harm. In an organization, NO ONE PERSON KNOWS EVERY LAST THING. People have to defer to and rely on each other. That’s not passing the buck: it’s reality.

    But John continues to act like the football player in my hypothetical example, denying what is plainly true.

    That, folks, is why it’s not worth arguing with him. He is not swayed by that which would sway a reasonable person. There is nothing, NOTHING, that will change his mind because his is a mind that is not bound by the restrictions of logic or reason.

    So, I’ve decided, it’s not worth bothering to convince him that his arguments amount to paralogisms. If he wants to fool himself, and pay the price that a fool pays for living in a world of denial, so be it. Let him.

    Sad, but not my problem.

Comments are closed.