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
• 
Either way, as far as british born writer/artists who have been on x-titles, I much prefer Alan Davis. Is he a nice guy or a jerk too?
1 // “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. //
It should also be mentioned that “I was only following orders” is a perfectly valid excuse in any organization unless the action being taken is illegal or immoral. Handing out artwork from a comic even if it spoils a story is not in any way illegal, and I dont’ think any one would argue it’s immoral. In the corporate world people do things that pìšš øff others all the time, and sometimes the only defence one has is “my boss told me to do it, take it up with him/her”. I see this happen on a least a weekly basis where I work and have had to use the excuse on more then one occasion myself. Only once or twice in my life did I not follow orders because what I was being asked to do was something I knew was illegal, (and my bosses at the time knew it to, that’s why they didn’t push me). Other times, not following orders can get you fired, (or at the very least reprimanded). You can bring out the holocaust imagery all you want but corporations, armies and governments wouldn’t be able to function if people didn’t follow orders. And yes I know this doesn’t really apply here, since PAD never used that as an excuse, it’s just that someone had to say it, that’s all.
“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.”
Wasn’t there an incident where he took an article posted on The Onion as fact? I seem to vaguely remember it, and it was pretty funny and how once it was pointed out to him that The Onion was a satirical site he never spoke on the matter again.
I vaguely recall him falling for an Onion article the first time, but don’t remember the details. I know Dave Sim fell victim to The Onion, believing their reporting on Middle America becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Gay Pride Parade was the real deal.
I do remember him “losing respect” for The Onion when their joke got some facts wrong, relying on a common misunderstanding of the situation… as if getting facts right are anything The Onion worries about.
Byrne has shut down the thread. Here was my last post (To Matt Reed), when he justified antagonistic behavior to me due to the tone of participants of this blog.
—
“Matt:
I don’t think it’s fair to assign arguments made to me that I never made. I have never called anyone here anything derogatory. I have never participated in any of the antagonistic behavior you describe. I have said nothing on Peter David’s site that I have not said here. You say you went to Peter David’s forum. Did you read the posts I made? By all means, do. You may not agree with all the opinions I hold on that (or this) forum, but I am comfortable in my belief that I acted as civil there as I have been here.
I am not a representative of Peter David’s blog. And in my participation in his blog I have NEVER participated in the behavior you deplore. Here is an example of me talking about this blog while on Peter David’s forum:
Me: I do see your point and I do understand why they might have reason to be paranoid of any newcomers. To be fair, many of the regular forumers over there have graciously defended me, even against Byrne.
You have a bias against people from Peter David’s forum? Frankly, that’s not my problem. I frequent many discussion boards on the internet. Participation or fandom with these two men does not define me. Nor should it define anyone.”
—
And that’s the end of it. Prejudice followed by censorship.
Bill Meyers,
For some reason I’m having trouble with aol so I couldn’t reply to your email to me. I was very sorry to hear about Albert. I know that Jeannie must be pretty busted up over it and nobody likes to see someone as nice as Jeannie being sad. So give her an extra hug for me. I’ll be extra sweet to my own cats tonight in Albert’s memory. (I may have to be sweet to them if the hurricane hits tonight as expected–storms freak them out).
Glenn Hauman–is it just me or is it impossible to post comments on view from above? I’ll try again.
In the interest of fair representation, I just emailed this to Matt Reed:
—
I missed this aspect of your original statement. Mt apologies in that regard.
“I’m not saying you’re of this mind, L”
Obviously, it mitgates some of my earlier email. Sorry about that part.
—
As I made the matter public, I felt I should make this aspect public as well. If you read this, my apologies for this misrepresenting this aspect, Matt.
Never mind Glenn, it’s working fine.
I apologize for implying that Matt Reed was acting in a prejudiced manner. I was angry and it was unwarranted and overly inflammatory. I also apologize to Peter, as his blog is not the place for me to carry this argument. The heat of the moment overwhelmed me. I’m all for letting the matter drop.
“I do remember him “losing respect” for The Onion when their joke got some facts wrong, relying on a common misunderstanding of the situation… as if getting facts right are anything The Onion worries about.”
Byrne is not of the brightest chaps around. A couple of weeks ago in a thread devoted to one of his cover recreations (Kitty/Logan from DoFP) someone else posted a Frank Quitely cover from the NXM era when Logan had a ‘soul patch’. Another member criticized Logan’s look in that cover and Byrne tought he was refering to his cover. He proceeded to insult the guy even after he and a few other pointed out he was talking about Quitely’s cover.
A few years back, after the Punisher/Spider-Man “team-up” in Ennis’ Punisher, I wrote some post contrasting Ennis’ mean-spirited (but still funny) treat of Spider-Man to Blazing Saddles.
He chastised me for *comparing* the two.
Compare… contrast… same thing, right? [rolling eyes]
The Onion thing i remember is him swearing it off after getting basic facts wrong-knwing that it was a joke, but thinking it had to have some basis in reality
He has a tendency to “never again” very dramatically.
Loved 2001-pondered what it meant-read an article where they said “If they understood it, we failed.” and swore it off as garbage forever more.
Just like he is done with the onion.
“Compare… contrast… same thing, right? [rolling eyes]”
For a writer, Byrne sometimes has a tenous grasp of the English language.
Let me guess, you wrote your point, Byrne picked one or two sentences and replied with a sentence missing it completely, you replied and then he insulted you along with some tortous leap of logic of how you were wrong.
99% of the ‘debates’ (and I use that term loosely) with him go that way.
Darren, your post about the “FOLLOWING ORDERS” thing is well thought out, but any time I’ve heard that, I’ve only heard it in situations where SOMEONE would have some reason to question the ethics or legality or naughtiness(in the less extreme cases) of whatever is being talked of. Had I been in this situation, or one similar, I don’t THINK that I would’ve said that I was only following orders. I would’ve said, smart-aleck that I am, something to the effect of “Dude, get a grip, breathe, nothing here worth getting THAT upset over.” But then, that’s one of the reasons I got out of sales. My mouth always gets me in trouble. That, and the fact that I kept getting hired by sales companies that were about to, you know, shut down. That being said, the only time that I’ve NOT done something my bosses have told me was when one of them, who was built like Herve Villachez without the elevator shoes, told me to follow a large-ish Hispanic guy around the store and make sure he doesn’t steal anything because Walt knew that that’s what he was there for. Now, I’m a large-ish Celtic guy, but my butt wasn’t gonna be risked for five bucks an hour.
I think it’s absolutely hysterical that Byrne shut down the thread. Something about not taking the heat in the kitchen comes to mind….
Nah, he insulted me in that post, saying it was the stupidiest thing he’d heard and that he wouldn’t read any more of my posts on the subject… thus missing out on me correcting him about the proper useage of “compare” and “contrast”.
SO in Byrne’s mind its about respect right.
How come all his page from the first 3 issues of the Atom were posted in one of his galleries a few weeks ago?
Should Gail Simone be going batshit at Byrne for ruining her story??????
“Nah, he insulted me in that post, saying it was the stupidiest thing he’d heard and that he wouldn’t read any more of my posts on the subject… thus missing out on me correcting him about the proper useage of “compare” and “contrast”.”
Close, at least.
You really got on his nerves, right? It’s a wonder he didn’t banned you before.
Byrne reminds me of the Bill Pullman character in Lynch’s Lost Highway, who didn’t liked videocameras because he prefered to remember things his way.
Bill,
Good luck riding the storm out. The wife and I, by good timing and fate, only caught a bit of it riding down to Georgia from Virginia today and it made us wince thinking about how hard it’s going to hit around home. We only hope that when we get home we don’t find that our house has floated away. We ain’t that far from the areas in Richmond that were half destroyed in the storm induced floods a couple of years ago.
Hint for all cat lovers for the next storm:
Pack away a tin of Kookamunga Catnip (Petsmart sells them cheap) treats in you emergency kit. They work wonders on the liitle fuzzballs. My wife has two cats. Four treats each and we have Zen Kitty (lays out, rests head on paws and zones out) and Spaz Kitty (mega wired and chasing bugs that aren’t there to the point that the house could blow up and I doubt that he would notice much) for most the evening. Warning: Six treats and you get to clean up the floor.
You really got on his nerves, right? It’s a wonder he didn’t banned you before.
***
That was the pre-banning days at the Magnus board. Anyone could say anthing to him without fear of reprisal. I usually kept it polite, save for when he started insulting me.
After that, I just never gave him any real reason to ban me (he eventually had to just make up bûllšhìŧ), and I learned I got a fair amount of cover from one of his previous mods, who thought I didn’t deserve banning.
For years I have been trying to figure out just what the problem was that turned John Byrne into such a Peter David hater. As a fan of both of these creators, I had always assumed it was just some “personal thing.” I recall asking both gentlemen over the course of the years what the bad blood was, and neither would ever tell the story.
A simple misunderstanding over 20 years ago is a sad reason. Life is too short!
A Few asides: One of the first days I located John’s site I asked why they (Peter & John) had not worked together, needless to say that was also the last day I ever ventured there. Between John’s response and the attacks by his minions I figured I didn’t need that.
Treating your fans with respect will keep you guys working.
Peter lives in another state and yet I have had the opportunity to speak with him and ask questions a dozen times in the last 10 years, even bother him for an autograph. John lived 3 minutes from my house for the last 20 years, and aside from his one nasty remark while we stood in the same line to see a movie, he has allowed no interaction amongst him and his fans, unless they type their worship to him in blog form.
Pete, you keep writing them and I’ll keep buying them.
Thanks for being a decent human being and a person worthy of fans.
John, this is Alpha Flight we are talking about…at it’s highest sales point, I don’t think it made a blip. Get over it.
Yeah I can ramble on with the best of em, eh?
I can never decide…should Rex Hondo be like the superist macho cowboy…or a superist macho cop…
OOOH…the superist macho cowboy cop! I think I need to go make a logo!
Actually, it’s Rex Hondo, trans-dimensional bounty hunter extraordinaire, but “macho cowboy cop” sounds cool too. 😛
Hëll, now it looks like I couldn’t start using my real name, even if I wanted to. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Bill Myers, you have my sympathies. It’s never easy to lose one of our four-legged family members.
-Rex Hondo-
“After that, I just never gave him any real reason to ban me”
Besides logic. Which is kinda his kryptonite. Your banning was a low point for the board (and by God, it has had many) you were never mean, never rude nor disrespectful.
Bill Mulligan: I gave Jeannie an extra hug for you. Good luck riding out the hurricane. Drop me a line when all settles down and let me know how you are.
Rex Hondo Macho Cowboy Cop: Thanks for the sympathies. Albert was my first pet. Didn’t realize how hard it would be to lose him.
Pete Chuka: Those people who write off Peter David as a complete áššhølë should try, y’know, interacting with him first. I did (via this blog) and have found him to be very much NOT an áššhølë. If you’re respectful of him — not ášš-kìššìņg, mind you, just respectful — you get the same in return. God forbid.
Bil Myers: my sympathies on your cat. It’s always hard to know when it’s time to let go of a beloved pet.
Bill Mulligan and anyone else in Ernesto’s path: Keep your heads down and good luck weathering the storm.
Pete Chuka: I never got the point of Byrne’s message board, other than to have people an online circle jerk for his ego. All you have to do is see how Bill Myers and Landry were treated as interlopers just for asking a question about a topic already in progress. One person even testily said that they should have spent a few weeks learning the “culture” of the boards before asking such a question. I guess Byrne only answers questions when you’ve asked in the proper sycophantic manner.
This is the real controversy to me…and people are just silent…
“For some reason I’m having trouble with aol”
Why the heck are you using *AOL*, Bill????
Bill Myers: My sympathies to you and your lovely girlfriend.
Wait a tick–Rex Hondo ISN’T your real name? Everything I know is a lie….!
Whatsamatter with AOL? If we could’ve gotten it on high speed, I’d still be on it! (Now, THERE’s a ringing endorsement. Are those crickets I hear?)
Wait a tick–Rex Hondo ISN’T your real name? Everything I know is a lie….!
Yup, I’m one of them low-down alias using varmints. 😛
Of course, that I’ve been using the same handle since the old dial-up BBS days counts for something, right?
…Right?
-Rex Hondo-
Thanks to all who have expressed sympathies. Albert was a great cat.
Matt Reed’s final response to Landry Walker was quite telling. I’m particularly amused by the complaint, “Reading the link to PAD’s blog, I hear a lot of the same old same old from people that cop to never having spent a minute on this forum.”
Matt’s underlying premise seems to be that people are judging him and other Byrne loyalists without first getting to know them. I suppose he feels if people would simply read the boards for awhile they would change their minds.
No such luck in my case, I’m afraid.
In one of my posts at Byrne Robotics, I explicitly stated that I used to read the forum every day, but after awhile I grew sick of John’s horrible attitude towards everyone, fans and foes alike. I wonder if Matt and the other posters who were criticizing me for coming on like gangbusters before “getting to know” the “community” assumed I meant I had looked over the boards for a few days and formed a snap judgment.
Because I in fact had been a daily reader of Byrne Robotics for about two years before getting fed up with John and the sycophantic behavior of many of the posters there. Matt seems convinced that the people who judge John and his loyalists negatively are doing so based on hearsay and stereotypes. No, no, no. I am basing this on my first-hand knowledge of what goes on at Byrne Robotics. I judged them by nothing other than their behavior. No second-hand stories. No rumors, “half-truths,” or lies. Just direct observation of how people there actually behave.
Heck, when I started reading Byrne Robotics, I had ascribed John’s negative reputation to the rantings of a few people jealous of his talents. And I had no idea Byrne’s most devoted fans had such a bad reputation. My negative opinion of John and his loyalists was formed not on the basis of preconceived notions, but on the basis of the behavior I observed over a two-year period.
No, not everyone there is paranoid of “outsiders” and a sycophant of John’s. But there are many who display those characteristics. Matt Reed is certainly one of them.
And it’s funny how John constantly tries to claim that really, these criticisms are more true of Peter’s blog. Even though Peter will actually answer readers’ questions, and allow people to continue posting even if they insult him. Even though Peter doesn’t have a list of rules that run a mile long.
Byrne Robotics is John’s forum, it’s true. He has a right to a labyrinthine list of rules if he wants. But he doesn’t have the right to invent his own reality. Peter’s blog is starkly different from his own, and the conversations that take place here display a marked lack of sycophancy. In other word’s, it’s pretty much the opposite of Byrne Robotics. No amount of denial on the part of John or his loyalists will alter that reality.
I’m a little bit pìššëd that PAD failed to approve my Olsen twins anecdote. It took me forever to type out. Foul censor!
I admit to having spent a large amout of time reading over severl of byrnes boards the last few days. Those who have seen my posts here know that I’m rarely if ever serious. For me being here is about my entertainment and the entertainment of others. Through all that PAD no matter what joke I have made has never said an unkind word, and what discourse I have had with him directly be it e-mail or a response to a post I have made has always been friendly and civil. From what I have read I doubt I and my brand of humor would be welcome on the Byrne boards. Hëll I bet I’d be banned for the content of my web site.
JAC
“I’m a little bit pìššëd that PAD failed to approve my Olsen twins anecdote. It took me forever to type out. Foul censor!”
I failed to what? Dude, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. It’s possible something of yours got caught in a spam filter, but I don’t personally peruse messages and decide yea or nay.
Oh, one final comment about the Byrne board: In what I thought was a rather surreal posting, one person took umbrage that I referred to them as “Byrnebots.” Someone please clarify it for me: I thought that’s what they called themselves, since the place is called “Byrne Robotics.” I used to call them “Bullet takers” since they always seemed eager to fall over each other in intercepting questions intended for Byrne and firing back while John remained silent. I thought “Byrnebots” was the preferred term for that site. I was wrong?
PAD
Well PAD they called us Davidians. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go injest the life force of some turn of the century san franciscans through a hole in my forehead. Has anyone seen my snake?
JAC
I thought “Byrnebots” was the preferred term for that site. I was wrong?
I don’t know if you’re wrong or not, but it’s probably a case of “If we use it, it’s ok; if you use it, it’s just derogatory”.
Pretty much seems to me that JB had a right AT THE TIME to be annoyed that a pivotal scene from an upcoming story was spoiled and I can see why – in the heat of that imemdiate moment- PAD, who was there and showing the pages to people, ended up getting some flack. But given the fullness of time and the fact that it seems like a ‘bad idea’ on conveyer-belt that wasn’t halted at any way before the event in question, that it would be sensible for both sides to say:
“Yeah, in hindsight, showing those pages was a bad idea, but it was general naive clusterf**k and not done to specifically screw anybody over.”
Just an abstract lesson in ‘if you’re going to tease something or use something sensitive to drum up support, make sure everyone involved knows the nature of it, otherwise it’s BOOM!
Thanks to all those who sent their best wishes vus a vus the hurrican but, frankly, it didn’t turn out to be much in my area. I’ve been through scarier car washes.
why do I use aol? Well, I’ve had my email as kaiju@aol so long it would be hard to change it plus we get high speed internet so it’s cool. I live in freaking Children of the Corn territory, I take what I can get!
I vaguely remember John mentioning that he wrote the published fan letters for an issue or 2 of the FF early in his run. A chill just ran over me at the thought of John writing all the posts on his board.
“I thought “Byrnebots” was the preferred term for that site. I was wrong?”
Yes. It is a popular insult around the net, refering to the often right status of the JBF members as mindless drones.
“Yes. It is a popular insult around the net, refering to the often right status of the JBF members as mindless drones.”
Resistance is futile, we are byrne fans. You will be assimilated, or insulted.
The thread at the Denny O’Neil board was started by Joe Zhang. Joe Zhang, on the Byrne board, denied having posted it. So I now assume that the thread was actually started by an imposter.
Thus, I agree with the deletion, for the most part.
Maybe it could have been left there as an example of the loony internet.
If you think John busts on Peter now, wait till he finds out that Peter killed Rich Johnston…
Has anyone actually seen PAD and Mick Foley in the same place at the same time?
Oddly, I know them both. Trust me, they ain’t the same guy.
More about the postings on the Denny O’Neil Message Board.
The first post by “Joe Zhang” asked Denny for his input.
The second post was one I made informing Denny that he was being asked for info to be used in a he said/he said argument between the fans of Peter David and John Byrne. I felt it only proper that he know what he was getting into. I also posted 3 sections of quoted material that pretty much summed up what had been said so far.
I also made the third post. That post was posted after I read on the Byrne board that Joe Zhang denied even knowing where the O’Neil board was. This was also after reading here that there was an imposter or 2 making posts in other people’s names. I posted that info and sorted suggested that O’Neil might not want to respond.
So having the thread deleted doesn’t really bother me. I also do not think it falls under any charge of censorship.
As a rather vocal Jewish poster who recently got banned from Byrne’s board for the “sin” of pointing out that Mel Gibson is far from alone in his hatred of Jews (methinks thou doth protest too much, Mr. Byrne), I can at least take a certain amount of pleasure in noting that he categorized my comments as the “most idiotic” he had read all year. Coming from a dude who thinks that calling Superman “Supes” is disrespectful and who can’t get it into his thick head that The Onion is meant to be satire, I consider that to be a badge of honor!
P.S. PAD–Having just re-read “The Atlantis Chronicles,” I can’t see how anyone could not make sense of the balcony scene.
P.P.S. PAD–This has nothing to do with Byrne, but I also just had a chance to read “Missing in Action.” And while I must admit I didn’t think it was the strongest of your “New Frontier” efforts, the death of a major character was quite effectively handled, nevertheless.
Regarding the Denny O’Neil thing;
I posted a completely polite, non-confrontational question on his board, asking Denny if he’d given PAD the pages in question. “Moderator” Matthew Hansel promptly deleted that post. I e-mailed him, asking why, since it clearly followed his stated mandate for the question having to be “dignified and respectful”. He claimed Denny had requested all questions on the subject be deleted. I looked up Denny’s AOL e-mail on the board, and e-mailed him directly.
I asked him if this was true. I pointed out that aspersions were being cast on people’s honesty, and reputations were being assaulted. And I asked him why, if he chose not to set the record straight and vindicate whomever was being falsely accused, it was necessary to delete the question, rather than simply not respond.
You can check on AOL as to whether someone has read your e-mail or not, and Denny read the e-mail approximately 7 hours ago. As of now, he has not responded.
There’s simply no excuse for trying to prevent a polite, legitimate question from being asked, and there’s even less excuse for being so cowardly as to be afraid to explain your actions, and relying on someone else (Hansel) to do so. My opinion of Denny O’Neil is quickly lowering to the one I hold of Byrne.
On another topic; does anybody knows what’s up with Howard Mackie? He made a series of comments casting aspersions on Peter’s version:
Wow… I am entering this thread VERY late, but I do want to make a few comments.
a) I hav e to admit that I have NEVER heard this bad Byrne story before. A complete new one to me.
2) back before I was a washed up writer, I was a washed up editor at Marvel… back before the internet… and yes, stroies still leaked, art work did get copied and distributed illegally(assistants, interns, anyone walking by the copy room grabbed stuff).
****
I also remember when the sales department started to ask for more and more artwork to sell the stories. We used to go strictly with covers, and suddenly more was needed. I remember(even when I was an assitant working for Mark Gruenwald) there being a constant struggle between editorial and sales. Seems silly, but there was competion. Editorial was trying to control the flow of info that was presented to the sales department, and sales wanted to make those calls themselves. Bottom line is, stuff got out. Sometimes it was for the good, other times…
****
As someone who worked a Marvel around that time, I can tell you it was pretty dámņëd hard to get fired… near impossible. We used to joke about it all the time. Also, the superstars of yesteryear were very different(and differently treated) than those of today. NO ONE had carte blanche. AND… in any matters were it came down to siding with a staff member, and a creator… for better or worse… the company sided with the staffer.
***
It wasn’t until years later, when the Marvel line of books swelled to it’s largest ranks, and a number of incidents of missing artwork occured, that a form was developed to have a paper trail and accountability. Up until that point people from any departm,ent could come in to an editorial office, rifle through draws, and take artwork.
Does Mackie have some sort of personal beef with PAD?
I don’t think so. Unfortunately, Howard’s comments aren’t especially relevant since he wasn’t an editor in 1983 when the incident occurred. In fact, I’m fairly sure that Howard and I had only a fairly brief overlap in tenure at Marvel. Wikipedia backs my recollection on this, citing him as editing in the late 1980s, by which point I had already left my position in sales. So I have zero idea what matters were like after my departure (unless I’m now being expected to be answerable for things that happened when I wasn’t there.) All I can do is describe how things were in the sales department while I was there (and Howard wasn’t), and during that time, sales simply didn’t walk out with material, period. If matters and procedures deteriorated after I left, that’s too bad.
I do know of one incident (again, after I had left the company) where artwork vanished from the bullpen. Rather than this being some sort of standard thing, however, the response was immediate: Virtually overnight, Marvel built an entry/security system in the reception area. It used to be that people could just walk in and out. It was assumed that an outsider had strolled in, picked up the artwork, and left. So the security system was installed. Ironically, it was later discovered that the art was swiped by the teenaged offspring of a Marvel exec, and not an outsider at all. The art was returned, but the security system remains in place to this day.
PAD
Matt Adler: “My opinion of Denny O’Neil is quickly lowering to the one I hold of Byrne.”
I can appreciate your energy on this, but I really don’t it’s fair to judge Denny O’Neil on this. Both Byrne and PAD spoke on this topic publicly. Denny O’Neil did not. If he wants to remain private over a conflict that, in all likelihood, will not be resolved regardless of what he has to say, that is his right and we should respect it.
Much of the stored Kirby artwork went missing, but that is another thing.
The Mackie thing-he never took issue per se with what PAD had posted. He was answering questions regarding procedures when he was there, not specifically about this incident
Shortdawg, you got banned because they thought it sounded like you were endorsing the hatred of Jews. I know you weren’t, but that is why they got up in arms about it.
I think PAD can be a bit grumpy himself, on the political threads at least. However, I admit I was not so polote myself, though what actually got me ignored was unjustified. He has something of a neg rep around some boards from what I have seen but I am not sure what it is based on. For Byrne I know-some of it is exaggeration or really taking offense at nothing-looking to be offended-much of it is Byrne himself (or the few people that make it worse, not better, when they defend him). UInfortuantely for him, he is in the same position as elders of his, or contemporaries, whome he took pot shots, justified or not, back in the day,
PAD:
I don’t think so. Unfortunately, Howard’s comments aren’t especially relevant since he wasn’t an editor in 1983 when the incident occurred.
Hmm. He surely knows that, and it’s interesting that he left out that very relevant detail.
The thing I’m struck by is that this isn’t just a hypothetical conversation; you are pretty clearly being accused of theft. And yet rather than qualify his comments with something like “I have no reason to believe Peter David did this, I’m just commenting on what I observed were the practices at the time”, he just lets the insinuation sit there, and allows his comments to lend support to it. That to me is pretty much the definition of character assassination.
L. Walker:
If he wants to remain private over a conflict that, in all likelihood, will not be resolved regardless of what he has to say, that is his right and we should respect it.
You’re missing the point, though. It’s not a question of whether he wants to weigh in or not. The question is, why is he ordering the deletion of any posts that even inquire about it? I’m all for keeping a board civil and friendly, but when you start veering down the road of arbitrary deletion without explanation, you wind up looking self-serving and dishonest.
Sorry, everybody, but I have to. Regarding Bill’s location, a visual, if you’ll go with me. A cornfield, the sun rising. Several kids looking like refugees from “Miri.” A pale kid in a preist’s habit walks forth and summons his underling by yelling his name.
“MULLIGAN!”
There. That image is out of my head.
I have to go with L. Walker’s idea behind Denny O’ Neill’s silvence on this matter. It’s entirely possible that he knows all about it, but just doesn’t wanna get dragged into the conflict. He might know that no matter WHAT he has to say, it’ll at the very LEAST look like he’s choosing sides and he doesn’t want half the internet mad at him.
Why do I have to be an underling? Can’t I be He Who Walks Amongst The Corn or He Who Briskly Strides Amongst The Cotton, Taking Special Care Not To Get Cut Because That Stuff Has Sharp Edges Which Probably Goes A Long Way Toward Explaining Why The Slaves Were So Pìššëd Øff, Besides The Whole Being Slaves Part?
John Byrne has pretty much set it up so that if Denny O’Neill fails to back up his (Byrne’s) version of things he is a liar. And will doubtlessly have to deal with grief from Byrne’s more vociferous fans. Who needs the grief? Not everyone enjoys arguing, even with opponents who make winning easy.