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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what I think, anyway.

I appreciate the reply.

As to lifting one exchange and presenting it as representation of a common pattern of behaviour, not so.  If that is the case, I wasn't clear enough,as far as I am concerned it is not, my concerns were specific to this exchange. There is so much more that is great on this board in proportion to this kind of exchange and my position is that it is not representative of the board or the members in general.  Adamantly so.

I am glad for your confirmation regarding the actions of the members.  Without it it is too easy for people to make assumptions regarding your position.

As for Mike O' Brien playing fair before his buttons were pushed, sorry but that is not acceptable to me though I respect that it is for you.  Generally speaking, I like Mike, but in this instance I feel he let himself down and totally undermined his position in an unnecessary and unfortunate way.  Again, I speak only of this exchange and look forward to Mike's, for the most part hightly entertaining posts, in the future.