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
• 
First to BILL MULLIGAN (Hannity style of debate? What? If you mean telling the truth I guess so… Here’s what you responded to me….
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.
Okay, here’s your veracity check…. From August 11…. First the ‘get lost for having a difference of opinion’, then the hypocracy….Insult opposing viewpoint on PAD’s site, then PAD took a couple of sentences out of context and responded like this guy was just insulting people….. Read the whole statement in context with that political thread and tell me I’m wrong…..
Posted by Anonymous Internet Jerks at August 11, 2006 02:29 PM
Actually, I have an even bigger worse case scenario: Twenty-one Islamic Fascists hijack ten airplanes originating from the UK and blow them up over the Atlantic, killing hundreds of innocent people.
I know, I know, such a silly idea! Who would ever do something like that? And even if they did, could you blame them?
I mean, Bush is SO evil: he hatched a war that thrust an entire region into chaos, committing thousands to death and inciting all kinds of justified retribution … just because he wants POWER. And, he is so tainted with vile evil conservativeness that his mere presence can tank one man’s poltical career!!
Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this … this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening? That Lieberman’s entire political career is over because he, in sticking to what he believes to be right, sided with President Bush on one issue?
You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this … this is flat out scary.
Posted by Peter David at August 11, 2006 03:34 PM
“You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this … this is flat out scary.”
No, what’s flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
PAD
Read it again…. First, First the ‘get lost for having a difference of opinion’, then the HYPOCRACY….’get lost’, then the hypocracy….
A definition of HYPOCRACY.: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion….
Long post, but it’s all there….
btw, if anyone wants to brush up on the definition of HYPOCRISY, it might help to have the correct spelling.
Now I don’t see any hypocrisy there (nor hypocracy)
I see a guy insulting people because people were talking about something other than what he felt we should be talking about. So what if people didn’t want to talk about the UK plot…
What I see PAD saying… is basically sarcastic. Turning the insult at the people back around at the caster, and telling him if he doesn’t want to read it, get lost. The guy was basically trying to tell people what they SHOULD be talking about.
Blake, I’m sorry to phrase this so bluntly, but you are completely wrong.
The exchange you copied and pasted into your own post undermines your criticisms of Peter. First, AIJ was not merely having a “difference of opinion,” he was insulting Peter and everyone else participating in the Lieberman thread by calling us “delusional.”
AIJ then said, “…lurking here used to be fun…”
THAT was what Peter was responding to when he told AIJ, “…don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
Read that exchange again. AIJ was stating that he no longer derived pleasure from reading posts here, and I don’t think it’s much of a leap to infer that he wasn’t coming back. So Peter said, in essence, good-bye.
In addition, PETER DID NOT BOOT AIJ FROM THIS BLOG. How could I possibly know this? Because AIJ POSTED TWICE MORE AFTER PETER ADVISED HIM NOT TO “…let the door hit you on the way out.”
If Peter had banned AIJ after his initial post, he would not have been able to post again. But AIJ posted again. Twice. Thus, Peter must not have banned him after his initial post. QED.
Moreover, there are posters who have been far more insulting of Peter. And yet he allows them to come back, time after time after time. Again, more evidence against Peter’s banishment of AIJ.
Blake, please, before getting up on your high horse, check the facts. It’s not a lot to ask, and it benefits you moreso than anyone.
spiderrob: He can do what he wants. I am just saying, given the constant flame wars there, real (sometimes guys come by and start posts calling him Old Balls and stuff or saying stuff you would never say to a person in person-not that he is always innocent at all but still) and made up (overreaction), there is a bunker mentality sometimes now. and what i was saying is someone who comes there to ask questions like that, legitimate or not, and who only is posting in a thread regarding some controversial incident, isn’t likely to be taken seriously over there, right or not.
Luigi Novi: I wasn’t positive if your prior statement was made merely descriptively or prescriptively, but in any case, I was merely criticizing that attiude on the forumers’ part, and not yours. If they require people to post on “other topics” before they are “allowed” to disagree with Byrne, then they obviously do not understand how discussion is properly conducted, which is pretty much what everyone here has already said. 🙂
Blake: The thing that I don’t understand is: about a week ago I read PAD berating someone who had a difference of opinion. He questioned why this person would hang out at sites where people don’t have the same opinion and told him to get lost and not to let the door hit him in the ášš (This person I believe responded that he liked to hear what the other side has to say. He’s not afraid of differing opinions as PAD seems to be). 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?
Luigi Novi: Peter has never questioned why those who do not share his opinions would hang out here. He and others have pointed out to those offended by his opinions (typically political ones), and who complain when Peter expresses them, that this is his site, and that if they do not like his opinions, particularly in blog entries on political topics, that they can refrain from reading them, or just leave. He/we does not question why those who do not agree with him come here. He/we questions why those who complain that they are offended them come here. People who merely “disagree” with Peter do not get this response, as I am someone who has disagreed with Peter on more than one occasion. He even apologized to me once after a misunderstanding he and I on these boards. Hardly the behavior of someone who fits this fabricated description of yours.
Moreover, Peter’s problem with Byrne’s statements are not that he has “differing opinions”. It’s that Byrne lied about something Peter did. “Differing opinions” and false accusations have nothing to do with one another.
But if you can provide one blog entry or other documented instance of Peter saying this to a visitor, then I challenge you to provide one.
Blake: 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.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Who was it? Where and when was this?
Rex Hondo: 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.
Luigi Novi: Exactly. Slight variances in a story retold over the years would be expected, and would not necessarily be indicative of dishonesty, but merely a fading memory.
Bill Myers: 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.
Luigi Novi: My condolences, Bill. When Spot, the mother of my current cat, Elsa, was shot by an anonymous neighbor, I had to take her to the vet, who told me that they could hook her up to liquids and stuff, but that she’d be in a lot of pain. I was forced to make the decision there and then to euthanize her. It was excruciating to have to do that. Not too long after that, the (presumably) same neighbor shot Elsa’s brother, who died before I even had a chance to take him to the vet.
Jeff Coney: 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?
Luigi Novi: You’re a man with excellent taste, Jeff.
Matt Adler: 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.
Luigi Novi: I won’t pretend to be that knowledgeable of Denny, but he, along with John Ostrander, was my Writing for the Comics teacher in art school, and was always a nice guy. Perhaps he will respond, and just hasn’t gotten around to it? Or that maybe he just doesn’t want to get involved in this, and doesn’t want his site to be used for it?
Matt Adler: Does Mackie have some sort of personal beef with PAD?
Luigi Novi: I don’t see why he’d have to, since he never mentions Peter in his statement, and was merely describing the culture at the time, vis a vis the notions of whether Peter would’ve been fired to taking artwork, and/or whether Byrne had more clout than he with the company. He even says that he never heard this story before.
Matt Adler: 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.
Luigi Novi: Maybe because he doesn’t feel he knows Peter well enough to make that point one way or the other.
Blake: Hannity style of debate? What? If you mean telling the truth I guess so…
Luigi Novi: I would hardly characterize Hannity’s style of debate as “telling the truth.”
Blake: Okay, here’s your veracity check…. From August 11…. First the ‘get lost for having a difference of opinion’, then the hypocracy….Insult opposing viewpoint on PAD’s site, then PAD took a couple of sentences out of context and responded like this guy was just insulting people….. Read the whole statement in context with that political thread and tell me I’m wrong…..
Anonymous Internet Jerks: You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this … this is flat out scary.
Peter David: No, what’s flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Read it again…. First, First the ‘get lost for having a difference of opinion’, then the HYPOCRACY….’get lost’, then the hypocracy….A definition of HYPOCRACY.: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion….Long post, but it’s all there….
Luigi Novi: If by “it” you mean a false analogy, then yes, I agree. You stated that Peter berates people who have “differing opinions”, and questions why they come here.
He didn’t do that.
In the first place, it was AnonymousInternetJerks who did the “berating”, not Peter. Or does insulting everyone by calling them “delusional nuts” constitute a mere “opinion” to you?
Second, Peter didn’t question someone with a “differing opinion” for coming here. He questioned someone who, by their own words, considered everyone here to be a delusional nut, and in that regard he was right, since it makes little sense to frequent a website where you think of everyone there in that way.
Your intellectually dishonest attempt to analogize InternetJerks’ insults with a “differing opinion”, therefore, crumbles, as has your hollow attempt to establish hypocrisy on Peter’s part.
Try again.
Luigi, I’m sorry for your losses.
And, seriously? Your neighbors suck.
Every once in awhile a neighbor cat makes its way into our backyard. We don’t shoot them. We give them treats, and if they’re not skittish we play with them.
Yeah, what Bill Meyers said. I’d be very very nervous about having people who shoot dogs for fun around. there’s something extremely twisted going on in the head of a person like that; I’ll bet a close examination of their home would reveal some pretty scary things.
Blake, I was going to reply (and thank you for providing the posts in contention, though doing so didn’t help your case much) but Bill Meyers and Luigi did as good a job of pointing out the errors n your argument as I ever could have and with significantly fewer references to obscure horror movies of the 60s to boot.
Please remember to vote hypocrat in November.
Rex Hondo: 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.
*****
True, could be. But in court, it will get you in trouble. Being a lawyer, I know that you can pounce on someone for differences in a story from a deposition to trial testimony and impeach their credibility 🙂
Matt Adler: 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.
Luigi Novi: Maybe because he doesn’t feel he knows Peter well enough to make that point one way or the other.
He doesn’t know Peter well enough to say he has no reason to suspect him? Wouldn’t you NEED to know something about someone in order to suspect them?
Luigi, what the hëll kind of neighborhood do you live in, where people’s reaction is apparently, ‘There’s a cat: GET IT!’ It really does make you wonder about the human condition.
I was in the back yard last week talking to my landlord’s son-in-law who was painting a trellis when suddenly we heard a huge crashing in the brush behind us. To our surprise, a beautiful black lab emerged, trailing his leash, happily trotted up and sat down next to us. He didn’t mind sitting there while I grabbed his leash and checked for the owner’s name on the collar, but a couple of minutes later we heard somebody a block away calling his dog. Turns out he saw a rabbit and bolted (the dog, not the guy) and ended up in our back yard several blocks away. The man was hugely relieved to find his dog again, but it’s scary to think that in other towns, there are neighbors who would rather lie in wait hoping someone’s wayward pet will cross their path.
And going back to the discussion about AIJ, I remember being part of that chat, when Anonymous jumped in and pretty much called us a bunch of losers for having that discussion at all. What Peter said was, ‘Hey bro, nobody’s forcing you to be here!’ but he certainly didn’t ban him from the site, witness AIJ’s subsequent posts on that thread.
Based on the many months I’ve posted on this site, I would say that Peter would prefer having a good debate than forcing his own opinion on others and then dealing with opposing viewpoints by banning them or engaging in personal insults. And if memory serves, I can only recall only one incident in which he barred somebody from that site, but the person in question was so toxic that pretty much everybody was glad to see him go. Even then, Peter put up with an awful lot of crap before resorting to that final step.
Anyway, just my two cent’s worth.
We had a neighbor who used to shoot dogs with a BB gun when they came on his property (it was like a 15 year old kid). I didn’t know he did that, but once my dog got out, which was rare, and he came back limping really bad. Turned out my “friend” had shot him with the BB Gun, a pretty powerful one (not used to that-we lived in he sbuburbs not gun culture area) and he KNEW it was my dog, and he did it becausre the dog was going to the bathroom. I would have cleaned it up, and it was very rare my dog got out. Obviously doesn’t compare to a dog being killed.
There was also a person near me who apparently tired of his neighbor’s cats going on his lawn. I think they had a bunch of cats. anyway, one disappeared, and they tracked down somehow to a place where it turned out the cat was euthanized by the neighbor! and apparently it looks like he had done it once before to another cat of theres maybe a year before.
Howard Mackie is friends with Byrne. But typoically, he stays out of the controversial subjects except sometimes to answer a question or give his insight until a small subject thta is part of the larger whole, without commenting on the larger controversy. I suspect that is what he was doing this time. Simply providing information without getting in the middle of things. I don’t remember him every posting something negative about anybody while I was there
As others have pointed out, Annonymous Internet Jerks was not banned, just told no tears’d be wept over his apparent decision to leave. Not only did he(?) reappear in that thread, but I’m almost positive he subsequently posted in at least one other.
I’ve been visiting this site almost every day for over four years now, reading every thread (unless avoiding spoilers; even then I ususally catch up on the thread if I’ve read/seen what was discussed). There’s only been one banning in that time (and I think I recall hearing about one more sometime before that), of someone who posted GIGANTIC spam and finally threatened PAD’s family. And, there was one “disemvowelling” – after a couple of months of attacks, one total troll had his ability to use vowels in his posts removed. If someone is rude, PAD may respond in kind; but as far as letting people of varying opinions post, and continue to post, on his board, I’d say he has a pretty admirable record (particularly compared with, well, John Byrne).
From Mark Evanier, about some people who take umbrage:
http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2006_08_30.html#012000
Bill, of COURSE you can be He Who Does Questionable Things In The Corn, if you really want to. Gives you something to, er, stride toward!
And Blake, I’M the one who talked about the Hannity style debates, not the esteemed Mr. Mulligan. Not unlike John Whorfin, i hate to be mistaken for someone else. Besides, it REALLY hurts your arguement when you ascribe comments to your adversary that he, she, or it didn’t make.
Matt Adler: He doesn’t know Peter well enough to say he has no reason to suspect him? Wouldn’t you NEED to know something about someone in order to suspect them?
Luigi Novi: You would need to know something about someone to form an opinion either way on the matter. My point was that maybe Mackie doesn’t know Peter enough to be a character witness either way.
Joe Nazzaro: Luigi, what the hëll kind of neighborhood do you live in, where people’s reaction is apparently, ‘There’s a cat: GET IT!’ It really does make you wonder about the human condition.
Luigi Novi: Well, most of my neighbors are really nice, and I have no idea who the assailant was 13 years ago who killed Spot, but I can only assume that they’ve moved away or something, since Elsa, to my knowledge, has never been shot at, and has enjoyed the longest life of any cat I’ve ever had. But I appreciate yours and Bill’s kind words.
Luigi Novi: You would need to know something about someone to form an opinion either way on the matter. My point was that maybe Mackie doesn’t know Peter enough to be a character witness either way.
He doesn’t need to be a character witness at all. If he doesn’t know Peter well enough to make those judgements, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge that he doesn’t have any reason to implicate him, and make clear he is not casting (or supporting) aspersions. Given that the entire thread was about casting aspersions on PAD, and the comments Mackie was refuting were defenses of PAD, that’s a rather glaring absence from his comments.
“John Byrne said:
‘David is quick to unleash the L-word.’
I called him a Lesbian?
PAD”
Is he denying being a lesbian? Doesn’t he like girls?
😉
As for the question of “wanting the blog to be a pleasant place”, check out this one. People are free to disagree with PAD on a number of topics, so long as they’re respectful about it.
For that matter, check out the blog operated by Dr David Brin, noted sf author and astrophysics instructor at San Diego State (davidbrin.blogspot.com). As one can see reading the comments, Brin not only “permits” respectful debate, he actually encourages those who hold opinions opposed to his (so long as they can express those opinions intelligently – intelligent discourse is the Holy Grail for which Brin seeks, not sycophancy).
Compare and contrast to the Byrnebots, who would rather attack anyone who dares disagree with their temporal deity than engage in fruitful, intelligent conversation with someone who challenges their worldview…
Oh, I was also going to note – for a time, I was unable to post here, because there was a problem with my email address and Typekey. During that time, I had a question for PAD, and a suggestion for dealing with a situation if it were as I had thought. Since I knew PAD’s email from here, I dropped him a more personal line with my question in it. He treated the suggestion with probably more courtesy than it deserved (after all, I’m not the published professional with decades of notable writing behind me, just some schmuck who thinks he can draw a logical line from time to time), and managed to answer my question without revealing any more detail than the fact that the same question had already come up where it needed to. Not only was his reply courteous and properly friendly, he also referred my posting problem to Glenn, who promptly diagnosed it and advised me on how to (try to) fix it. (Still haven’t figured out how to change the email in my Typekey registry, but at least I can work around it now!)
(Oh, and belated thanks to both of you guys for taking the time to help me with that little matter…)
Matt Adler: “He doesn’t need to be a character witness at all. If he doesn’t know Peter well enough to make those judgements, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge that he doesn’t have any reason to implicate him, and make clear he is not casting (or supporting) aspersions. Given that the entire thread was about casting aspersions on PAD, and the comments Mackie was refuting were defenses of PAD, that’s a rather glaring absence from his comments.”
He answered a question that had been asked half a dozen times, that Byrne refused to acknowledge. He was polite about it, regardless of who is memories of working at Marvel supported. I don’t see why an honest attempt to answer should be taken as an accusation simply because there is no attempt at exoneration of the accused. I don’t think he lied and I don’t think he accused anyone. Instead, he helped the dialog move forward.
Assigning intent where none was specifically implied was exactly the mistake Byrne made.
Oh crap! I didn’t spell a word correctly. What a perfect opportunity to deflect the facts. And I never said anyone was banned…. That’s twisting my words. I never said PAD was deleting anyone’s posts (of course I do remember him saying that since someone posted on the Byrne site that they never post over here that PAD would be deleting anyone with that name on that site….God, am I going to have to find that to prove that to? Think it might’ve been on this thread….Anyway…) All I said was that PAD posted this:
“No, what’s flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
WHY IS PAD HANGING OUT ON THE BYRNE SITE AND RESPONDING TO THIS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT BYRNE?!!!!!
Me personally, I feel the last sentence:”But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” spells out ‘Get lost’ pretty plainly…And it’s because this guy had a difference of opinion….. He didn’t ban him. Never said that. All of you did. But it is STRONG ENCOURAGEMENT to go somewhere else.
Anyway….Hypocrat! (hahahahahahahaha)! (Ðámņ it, I’m providing an opportunity to diverge from the point again… Oh well….
Blake wrote: “WHY IS PAD HANGING OUT ON THE BYRNE SITE AND RESPONDING TO THIS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT BYRNE?!!!!!”
I don’t think you can really argue that viewing posts on a site is synonymous with direct participation, which is obviously something “Anonymous Internet Jerks” was practicing and Peter David was not.
Blake, correcting you about the proper spelling of a word is not “deflecting” anything, really. It’s educating you.
I have re-read your posts, however, and must acknowledge you are correct. You never said Peter banned AIJ. That was my misinterpretation. I concede that point.
Nevertheless, you are still completely wrong about what happened. AIJ didn’t come here simply espousing a different point of view. No, AIJ complained that the thread topic was trivial, and insulted Peter and the rest of us who were participating by labeling us “delusional.”
AIJ ended his rant by saying “…lurking here used to be fun…” Peter then merely let AIJ know that no one was forcing him to stick around. That is a far cry from telling him to
“get lost for having a different opinion.”
And even so, the situation with AIJ is in no way comparable to John Byrne’s attacks on Peter. AIJ came here complaining about a political discussion; nothing being written was a personal attack on AIJ.
Peter, on the other hand, was attacked personally in Byrne Robotics. Moreover, Peter asserted that John was lying and proceeded to give his side of the story. Completely different situation.
(As an aside, there are those who accused L. Walker and I of sticking our noses in where they didn’t belong. Which is side-splittingly funny, because John was making his remarks in a forum that can be read by anyone with an Internet connection! Again, I reiterate, it’s like walking up to a podium in front of a crowd, saying inflammatory things, and then telling the riled up crowd, “I wasn’t speaking to you.”)
Again, Blake, I concede that I was wrong about one aspect of what you said. Nevertheless, your overall premise is still off-base and not supported by the facts.
Oh, Blake, one other thing: the people coming here posting under the name “Joe Zhang,” “Rod Odom,” and “Greg Kirkman” were not merely using the same handles as some posters at Byrne Robotics. They were allegedly impersonating those individuals, each of whom had vowed they had never and would never post here. Peter took them at their word at deleted those posts in his blog from people using those names. Seems like a responsible thing to do.
Blake, I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but Jesus, is there nothing you won’t misinterpret???
I don’t see why an honest attempt to answer should be taken as an accusation simply because there is no attempt at exoneration of the accused.
Again, we’re not talking about exoneration, we’re talking about the reverse; avoiding indicting someone. You can be sure if I was going to say something that I knew would lend credence to accusations, especially ones that could destroy someone’s reputation (like theft and blatant fabrication), but I did not wish to specifically be a party to those accusations, I’d make that crystal clear. It’s not hard, it’s not time-consuming. It’s pretty obvious. The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes.
“Is he denying being a lesbian? Doesn’t he like girls?
;-)”
From what I read on Byrnes site, I’m not sure he likes anyone.
JAC
Many have commented on haw PAD encourages differing opinions on here, and debate as well. No one seems to also be pointing out that PAD although he has very strong opinions, “PAD opinion Smash!!!” (ok maybe not that strong)If you have a logical arugement that makes sense, or if PAD is simply wrong which has happened on a few occasions PAD can change his mind. Hes not carved in stone, and can be swayed. Now to stray form the serious back to the comedy…
“or if PAD is simply wrong which has happened on a few occasions” (looky I referanced my own post in the same post. Beat that!)
I understand from reading byrnes board that this has never happened to byrne, and even if it did like in hitch hikers guide to the galaxy the universe wuld simply re-order itself to make him right.
JAC
Oh and Luigi, thank you very much for the compliment! Out of all of my friends when Davis left x-men and Uncanny to make way for the return of Chris Clarmont I was the only one at the time who was really disappointed. 6 months later when the titles made you feel like you had missed something even if you had read every x-book since the dawn of time they were all pìššëd øff too.
Sigh I mearly lamented what could have been. I particularly liked when the x-men were on the scrull infiltration moon when Galactus came.
JAC
Jezus blake chill out! That having been said,
“the person that I was speaking of wasn’t ‘starting trouble’ He had a difference of opinion and was very ignorantly berated for it.”
He came in and called everyone delusional nuts, how is that not starting trouble. If i barged into your house, or was even invited in, and called you a raving jáçkášš (Not that I know that you are or even think that I’m just useing it as an example so do go getting all wacky)would I then be having a difference of opinion, and not be starting trouble? Would you not then ask me to leave your house?
JAC
That should read “don’t go getting all wacky”
Sorry.
JAC
Matt Adler: “The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes.”
I cannot help but disagree. As I implied, this is the same logic that was used against me by the many of the forumers on Byrne’s board. Yes, there is a responsibility on the one communicating to communicate clearly. But this does not diminish the readers responsibility to take the written word at face value. Howard Mackie has direct personal experience with the system under question. He answered a question about said system with details based on his expereince. Explicitly stating his neutrality is unnecessary as a bias should never be assumed in polite conversation.
Peter addressed the conflicts in the two recollections quite nicely, in my opinion. As Mackie has hardly followed up with a counterpoint, it seems to be a moot issue.
FROM BILL MYERS:
Blake, I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but Jesus, is there nothing you won’t misinterpret???
I don’t think that I’ve misinterpreted anything. Perhaps I’m making more of what was written or you are downplaying it. To me PAD was questioning another person’s desire to be at a
site where the majority disagreed. I don’t really frequent the Byrne site, but I would gather that the opinions there are reverse of what PAD thinks so if he takes his own advice he wouldn’t be over there lurking/eavesdropping just to get himself worked up….
I also find it odd that PAD is a bit more reconciliatory towards someone like Kevin Smith who has attacked him as much or more directly than Byrne has. PAD just wants to be friends with Kevin, while Byrne causes him much more distress over something as silly as giving away Guardian’s death. Again there are 2 sides to the story and only Byrne and David know the real truth. Everyone else just picks sides. I would guess that Byrne’s politics are what annoys PAD so greatly though, whereas with Kevin Smith he just wants to be friends. “Please like me Kevin…. Please let me be in one of your movies. We can be friends”… I hope that doesn’t sound like a personal attack on PAD; that’s just how it looks to me…. In any case John and Pete’s ‘She said, she said’s don’t really amount to anything more than pointless bickering, which is exactly what we’re doing , I guess, giving different interpretations of what the word ‘is’ is. So, in lieu of that, I’ll agree to disagree, move on, and allow anyone else the last word.
Explicitly stating his neutrality is unnecessary as a bias should never be assumed in polite conversation.
Except when the bias is implied by both the topic of conversation, and the position which the party is taking. The topic of the conversation being “Is it plausible that Peter David stole the artwork?” Howard’s response, even without directly mentioning Peter’s name, was an unqualified “Yes.”
Matt Adler: “Except when the bias is implied by both the topic of conversation, and the position which the party is taking.”
Which gets us right back to the error John Byrne committed while talking to me. Assigning intent where none was specifically implied.
John Byrne refused to answer a question. Instead, he insisted that the answer had already been provided. Four posts later, Mackie provides an answer. Thus underscoring the fact that no previous answer had been available, despite Byrne’s’ insistence to the contrary. I honestly doubt he intentionally pointed out Byrne’s error. But I suppose I could make an argument that this was not the case, and that Mackie intentionally undercut the credibility of Byrne by providing clear answers while Byrne refused. There are many ways to look at this. Why not take what is said at face value and leave it at that?
I honestly have no idea what error you’re talking about. Bottom line, Byrne accused PAD of stealing, and Mackie backed him up.
Uh, Blake? If I could stick my large nose in? Nowhere did Peter state in the start of the thread that he’d been on Byrne’s site. It’s entirely possible that he’s got friends or colleagues that contacted him in over some medium not visible to those of us who only participate on this blog who saw the Byrne site and said, “Hey, Peter, you know anything about this?” It’s really quite presumptuous to think that all of our host’s communication is done on this blog for all of us to see or that (now, this IS a limb I’m going out on, if I’m wrong, I ask forgiveness) but I’m pretty sure that you don’t know either man personally. By personally, I mean, see them on the street and say “Hey!” and have them recognize you and maybe go somewhere for lunch. In that vein, I’m not sure that you’re qualified to state wherefore any of their feelings toward each other are. I don’t know that most of the people on this blog are qualified to do that.
Matt Adler: “I honestly have no idea what error you’re talking about.”
As I said, “assigning intent where none was specifically implied.”
Matt Adler: “Bottom line, Byrne accused PAD of stealing, and Mackie backed him up.”
Not the way I see it. There are many possible interpretations of Mackie’s involvement. In the absence of absolutes, there is no reason to presume the inflammatory position to be definitive. This is particularly true when you consider that Peter already gave a credible explanation for the difference in recollection. An explanation that does not dispute either account.
Speaking of meeting people and being recognized, I’ve got a scenario going through my head. If I get to go to the next Philcon(or any other event, for that matter) and PAD’s there, I have a vision of a table being set up, with a bunch of you around it, I introduce myself, and then at a secret word from PAD, security comes and throws me in a small, dark room with X-Ray, never to be seen again. I shouldn’t let my imagination out to play that often.
Paranoid? ME? Who wants to know?
Not the way I see it. There are many possible interpretations of Mackie’s involvement.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Not many people realize Peter spoiled the ending of Clerks at another comic cook convention. When he was asked to introduce himself on a panel, he said, “Hi, I’m Peter David and I’m not supposed to be here today!”
Kevin Smith then stood up from the audience and shouted, “Motherf@#*r! You gave away my movie!”
After Smith stormed out (kicking over two chairs and three standing ashtrays), Peter asked, “I wonder if Bill Mantlo ever had days like this.”
I haven’t been around for a few days, but wanted to weigh in on one and only one point:
Bill (Myers), my deepest sympathies about your girlfriend’s cat. We’ve got three, ranging in ages from 10 to 15, and I’m hoping to have quite a few good years left with all of them … but my mother-in-law just had to put her cat down in January after it became clear that it was the right thing to do for said cat (who was 18 1/2 … a good run).
It’s never easy. My best wishes to you.
TWL
“Me personally, I feel the last sentence:”But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” spells out ‘Get lost’ pretty plainly…And it’s because this guy had a difference of opinion…..”
This has been responded to by several people, but you keep saying the same thing as if they hadn’t responded. So I’m going to go on the assumption that you’ll continue to do so until I answer myself.
The guy says he thinks we’re all delusional. He said it “used to be fun” here. Clearly he’s not happy. My attitude is simple: If he’s not happy, no one is keeping him here and he’s free to leave.
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what I wrote.
PAD
Peter David got the names of all Marvel fans, personally called them and gave away the endings on all of John Byrne’s stories. He also altered stolen artwork to kill off Guardian when it was Puck who Byrne had intended to die. He routinely tries to drown people by making them fall in water. If that wasn’t enough, he endangered Denny O’Neil’s life in order to make sure that he doesn’t tell his side of the incident. Many posters here thought that Denny had, indeed, expired. Our outrage at PAD’s actions is “peaked”.
Not to mention, the bášŧárd bought up all the disingenuousness when it went on Blue Light Special before anybody else could get any!
-Rex Hondo, super macho bounty hunting trans-dimensional cowboy cop-
Blake: And I never said anyone was banned…. That’s twisting my words. I never said PAD was deleting anyone’s posts
Luigi Novi: True, some did not respond directly to what you actually said.
But others, such as Sean Scullion, Doug Atkinson, Bill Myers, and myself, on the other hand, did.
And you haven’t responded to us either, have you? You’ve simply repeated the same thing over and over, never responding to others’ refutations of your statements.
Again, you stated that Peter “berated” someone for having a “difference of opinion”, and questioned why someone who didn’t share his opinion would come here. We pointed out that this is was untrue, because that’s not what AIJ said. He said that all the people here were “delusional nuts”. That has nothing to do with a “difference of opinion.” Peter never “insulted” AIJ, nor told him to stay off the site. It was AIJ who stated that he would not come back, and Peter merely told him not to let the door hit him on the way out. For you to retell this as Peter “insulting someone for a difference of opinion,” is a distortion so blatant that it functions virtually as a lie.
Pretending not to have read these responses from us isn’t going to work.
Blake: …of course I do remember him saying that since someone posted on the Byrne site that they never post over here that PAD would be deleting anyone with that name on that site….God, am I going to have to find that to prove that to?
Luigi Novi: No, because I remember it clearly, as well as the reason for it: He wanted to eliminate the ability of trolls to falsely impersonate someone else. In doing this, he was protecting the reputation of those Byrne fans in question. Are you implying that this was somehow questionable on Peter’s part?
Blake: All I said was that PAD posted this: “No, what’s flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” WHY IS PAD HANGING OUT ON THE BYRNE SITE AND RESPONDING TO THIS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT BYRNE?!!!!!
Luigi Novi: It is not obvious that he “feels the same way about Byrne”. AIJ called all the visitors on this blog “delusional nuts”, challenged Peter’s (and our) right to discuss what we wanted, and stated he was not coming back because this was no longer a nice place to lurk. Peter has never said this about Byrne or any of his fans on his forum. Peter has disagreed with much of the reasoning Byrne has employed in many of his publicly-stated opinions, and has had to defend himself against Byrne’s alleged lies, but has never made such a sweeping statement about him, his fans, the quality of his site, the fun in lurking there, or Byrne’s right to discuss what he wanted. It is because you are unable to see this clear distinction between AIJ’s statements and Peter’s record of behavior—which bear zero resemblance to one another—that you labor under the pretense that Peter is somehow behaving hypocritically.
Blake: Me personally, I feel the last sentence:”But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” spells out ‘Get lost’ pretty plainly…And it’s because this guy had a difference of opinion….. He didn’t ban him. Never said that. All of you did. But it is STRONG ENCOURAGEMENT to go somewhere else.
Luigi Novi: No. It is not. It’s an acknowledgement that the person in question already decided themselves not to remain here, and his reason was clear: He did not like the site, or the topics things we talked about, and decided to insult everyone here. No matter how many times you say it, this will never be considered “a difference of opinion,” and the only “hypocrite” I see is the one who criticizes the act of “berating” someone for a “difference of opinion”, but places that accusation upon the person who did NOT act that way, whiling giving a free pass to AIJ, who is the only person in the exchange in question who actually exhibited that behavior.
Jeff Coney: Oh and Luigi, thank you very much for the compliment! Out of all of my friends when Davis left x-men and Uncanny to make way for the return of Chris Clarmont I was the only one at the time who was really disappointed. 6 months later when the titles made you feel like you had missed something even if you had read every x-book since the dawn of time they were all pìššëd øff too. Sigh I mearly lamented what could have been. I particularly liked when the x-men were on the scrull infiltration moon when Galactus came.
Luigi Novi: You’re welcome, brother. Me, I just bought the Broadway Comics pin-up book, Babes of Broadway #1 on eBay because I saw that Alan Davis had one in there, and wanted to make sure that I didn’t miss a Davis piece. Am I obsessive, or what? 🙂
Bill Myers: Blake, I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but Jesus, is there nothing you won’t misinterpret???
Luigi Novi: How is this an ad hominem argument? Blake has misinterpreted the exchange between AIJ and Peter. In fact, insofar as he repeatedly refuses to respond directly to our refutations of his recounting of it, he has deliberately distorted it. Pointing this out is a legitimate refutation, and since it does not appeal to personal aspects of Blake, it’s not an ad hominem argument at all.
Blake: I don’t think that I’ve misinterpreted anything. Perhaps I’m making more of what was written or you are downplaying it. To me PAD was questioning another person’s desire to be at a site where the majority disagreed.
Luigi Novi: No. He did not.
He questioned AIJ’s desire to be at a place where he called everyone “DELUSIONAL NUTS”.
This has nothing to do with the “majority disagreeing”.
Now either you can be honest, and respond to this point, directly, or you can continue to dance around it, and just repeat the content of your post over and over as you’ve been doing. But if you do the latter, it will only reinforce your appearance as dishonest.
Blake: I don’t really frequent the Byrne site, but I would gather that the opinions there are reverse of what PAD thinks so if he takes his own advice he wouldn’t be over there lurking/eavesdropping just to get himself worked up….
Luigi Novi: You again ignore what has actually been said here. First of all, things are not so black-and-white that Byrne’s and Peter’s opinions on everything are necessarily the “reverse” of one another, nor are they “archenemies.”
Second, the issue here is that Byrne allegedly LIED about something Peter did, and if true, it was a very serious lie that goes to Peter’s professional life and history. This does not have anything to do with differing or reverse opinions. An accusation like the one Byrne made of Peter (as well as Peter’s response that Byrne lied) are serious public statements in matters of FACT, and have ramifications for one’s reputation. To refer to this as merely different “opinions” shows a total inability to describe things accurately, in lieu of a relativist desire to take disparate things and pretend they’re the same.
Blake: I also find it odd that PAD is a bit more reconciliatory towards someone like Kevin Smith who has attacked him as much or more directly than Byrne has. PAD just wants to be friends with Kevin, while Byrne causes him much more distress over something as silly as giving away Guardian’s death.
Luigi Novi: I haven’t noticed Peter particularly reconciliatory with respect to Kevin Smith more than anyone else. Peter pretty much makes it a point not to try to retain personal animosity with people with whom he has shared public disagreements. He has stated that he likes Kevin Smith’s work. He has stated that he likes Byrne’s work. Moreover, I believe it was Smith who buried the hatchet with Peter when Peter (or someone elese?) made inquiries into why Smith put so many jabs at Peter in his work. If Byrne exhibited a similar attitude, I’d imagine Peter would react in the same way.
And as far as their respective “attacks”, Smith’s comments have mostly been quite indirect, as the only direct one I know of is when he criticized Peter’s writing on Aquaman when he went on the Howard Stern show. All others, like his comments in the Introduction to the second Preacher TPB, or the things he worked into his Clerks comics, were somewhat veiled. By contrast, Byrne has made public statements about Peter and others, some of which, if true, would’ve cast Peter and those other people in a somewhat questionable light.
Blake: I would guess that Byrne’s politics are what annoys PAD so greatly though…
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall Peter ever mentioning Byrne’s politics, nor do I know what Byrne’s politics are, aside from the fact that he’s Pro-Choice on abortion.
Can you tell us what Byrne’s politics are? Can you show us where’s he’s publicly discussed them? Do you have evidence that Peter’s reaction to his politics has any influence over his public statements about Byrne, and that it’s not simply that Byrne says false things about Peter?
Blake: …whereas with Kevin Smith he just wants to be friends. “Please like me Kevin…. Please let me be in one of your movies. We can be friends”… I hope that doesn’t sound like a personal attack on PAD; that’s just how it looks to me….
Luigi Novi: And what exactly is it that causes it to look that way to you? Do you actually have some information that suggests that Peter wants to be in Smith’s movies, and conducts himself toward Smith for this reason, or are you simply fabricating these notions arbitrarily? Whether or not you say it “just looks that way to me” or not, the fact remains that in empirical matters, you still have to provide evidence or reasoning to illustrate your theory, and you haven’t done so. Without doing this, using weasel words like “just seems that way to me” is just a cop-out.
Blake: In any case John and Pete’s ‘She said, she said’s don’t really amount to anything more than pointless bickering, which is exactly what we’re doing, I guess, giving different interpretations of what the word ‘is’ is. So, in lieu of that, I’ll agree to disagree, move on, and allow anyone else the last word.
Luigi Novi: So lets see: You accuse Peter of ulterior motives with regard to his exchanges with Smith and Byrne, presume to know his state of mind with regard to Byrne’s politics, even though you’ve never mentioned what those politics are, and now seek to demean them both by referring to them as females, and then you think that hey, maybe we’re just engaging in “pointless bickering”.
Yes, Blake, you are indeed doing that.
I do not see anyone else, however, exhibiting this behavior.
Matt Adler: I honestly have no idea what error you’re talking about. Bottom line, Byrne accused PAD of stealing, and Mackie backed him up.
Luigi Novi: No, he illustrated the procedures that at the time, would’be made the scenario Byrne described possible. But he never backed up the accusation.
I had decided to let this whole thing go on without me, but I think that people should let Howard Mackie off the hook. He was trying to clarify a point that zillions of people were arguing about and told people what things were like during his tenure. He was careful to say that these were matters as they were during his tenure.
Given that Mr. Mackie is on friendly terms with Mr. Byrne, he was very neutral.
Tim Lynch: Thank you for your kind words. It’s amazing how pets can work their way into our hearts, and leave such a void when we lose them. Albert’s absence is weighing heavily upon both Jeannie and I.
Luigi: Okay, I surrender! It was scurrilous of me to accuse myself of having engaged in an ad hominem attack when such was not the case. Bad me. Bad me. 😉
All: Wow, this thread has grown to nearly Biblical proportions!
I’ve noticed that a number of people have veered off into mind-reading territory, which is always a dangerous practice. I think we should try to focus on the facts:
*John accused Peter of taking it upon himself to irresponsibly leak a story payoff that was a year in the making by photocopying original artwork without permission and distributing it to the fans.
*Peter maintains he received the photocopies from editor Denny O’Neil and made sure to verify that Denny was OK with those pages being made public; that the photocopies were shown not to fans but to retailers only; and that the photocopies were of unlettered pages that did not reveal the big payoff.
*Peter claims Denny provided him with the photocopies, while John claims Denny denied doing so. Denny has not made any public statements about this dispute, and thus claims about what he did or didn’t say amount to hearsay.
*In a post at Byrne Robotics, Howard Mackie described the environment at Marvel that he witnessed during his tenure with that company. Howard did not directly accuse Peter of anything, but instead merely asserted that until a certain incident caused Marvel to put better security in place, it was easy for anyone to grab original artwork without editorial permission. Moreover, Howard claims it was difficult for anyone to get fired from Marvel. Peter’s tenure as sales manager pre-dated Howard’s joining the company, however, so the relevance of his perspective is questionable.
*Over at Byrne Robotics, L. Walker and I asked John some questions raised by his version of events, which John never fully addressed.
I think those of us who are not Peter or John would be better off sticking with those facts. To do otherwise would imply knowledge that we do not and could not possess.
Lord knows why I stuck my nose into this. It’s probably because I spent two years reading the invective John spewed in his posts at Byrne Robotics.
I spent two years reading posts in which John referred to people who held certain opinions as “knuckle-draggers,” “micro-brains,” and other wonderful names. Since some of those opinions he was belittling were shared by me, I took those insults somewhat personally. I never bothered to dive in and respond at the time. Back then I didn’t have the guts.
Anyway, a few months ago I posted what amounted to a fan letter, discussing the impact one of John’s comics had on me as a kid. It was an issue from John’s run on “Fantastic Four” in the ’80s. I opined that John’s run on that book was second only to that of Lee and Kirby.
John never responded, which was cool. But then I noticed this gem in the FAQs section of Byrne Robotics: “…especially work which, like the FF, has taken on a legendary status far greater than its actually worth. (Second only to Lee and Kirby? Sure, if the space between is about 400 light years!)”
I suppose you could say John was merely being modest, but in the context of his arrogant and insulting demeanor, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I became disgusted and deciding to quite frequenting Byrne Robotics. I never made my displeasure known; didn’t see the point and back then didn’t have the guts anyway.
These days I’m a bit more hëll-for-leather, I guess, and decided to take Byrne to task for his arrogance, condescension and intellectual dishonesty. I guess I was fighting Peter’s battle as a proxy for my own.
If I have overstepped my bounds, Peter, I apologize profusely.
The thing of it is, I don’t think that Byurne particularly enjoys this; that is, I don’t get any sense of happiness from him in his attacks. It’s one thing to be a grouchy old misanthrope if that’s your thing and it floats your boat. L:ots of folks enjoy being cynical and they can be fun to be around, in moderate doses. But I don’t get that vibe form Byrne. He seems unhappy with his unhappiness.