"Super Villians" by Jim Shooter

[Wizard of Utopia]

Jim Shooter was supposed to be writing a book on the comic industry titled "Super Vllians". Does anyone have any updates on this info? Thanks in advance!:)

[sonicdan]

Yes, I think I remember reading something about it a week or ten days after you got booted from this site. Now when was it that you got booted again ? I can't remember the exact date... but I would say at least 7 days after your 'I won't post here again' email or something to that effect.

Yeah it's a good thing you keep reminding us or we may have forgot.
DAN

[Wizard of Utopia]

Thanks, Dan!
I think this book would be an intresting read, if it ever sees the light of day. It might even spur others to write their own. What did you hear about the book, Knightt? Maybe you can bring it up the next time you talk with Perlin. He might have some insider info on it.

[Wizard of Utopia]

I happen to enjoy ALL of Jim Shooter's work, & have never said a bad word about him, other than his poor choice of business partners. Been a fan of his all the way back to when he killed off Ferro-Lad in the Leigon.

I have complete collections of both the Defiant & Broadway lines (with the exception of the Fatale signed TPB). Why did you think I didn't like Jim? And why don't you give Layton a break? His screw-ups with Valiant were long ago. Didn't you like his Future comics? Didn't he publish a letter of yours on his website last August?

[x-omatic]

No... Steve. Not going to add to your vain attempts at being non-confrontational. I remember how *SQUEE* you were on the boards before you were banned (wasnt it TWICE that you were banned ?) AND the *SQUEE* PMs, Emails... threats of cancelling your Cystic Fibrosis Foundation donation (REALLY just a purchase) check for the charity fund raiser that I did a while back.

I remember... even when those around me do not.

I remember. I remember getting an email that told me to FOAD. I remember being told on these boards that he wished I would die. I remember all the threats, attacks, vulgar comments, accusations, lies, two face comments, personal propaganda, and utter BS that spewed for him.

This has all really just solidified that he can’t be trusted and is not a person of his word. He has been and always will be entirely self serving.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Not only do I remember, I still have a good chunk of it. Silly me, I save stuff like that...you know, for a rainy day. I remember someone crying forever about what a 'victim' he was, how everyone was just 'bullies', and he NEVER did ANYTHING wrong, EVER.

Well, you know, except for the posting of private information without permission, the constant back-handed insults, the death threats, the whining, the moaning, the carrying on, the publically telling people to quit PMing and then doing it yourself not once, not twice, but FIVE TIMES yourself, the desperate attempt to mask vicious and spiteful commentary with little smileys that didn't fool anyone....AND...screwing people over on the Valiant Bible.

But, you know, OTHER than that, it was just peachy keen.

You know...other than a couple of NORMAL, USUAL flareups, the board has been nothing but peace for MONTHS and MONTHS and MONTHS since VK was banned.

Coincidence? Only a fool thinks so. Is anyone reading this a fool?

Please...you were FORCIBLY BANNED from this board. Unless Greg makes some sort of PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT that he has allowed you back on, and under WHAT conditions, please JUST GO.

[bamaphilosopher]

Dang, this guy really ruffled some feathers back in the day, huh?

I'm glad I wasn't witness to any of that.

[cjv]

Not going to add to your vain attempts at being non-confrontational.

Out of curiousity, why not? If someone HAS turned over a new leaf, and is trying to be non-confrontational, why not support it?

If it is a ruse, or a short lived situation, it will soon come to light.

Has VK apologized for his previous actions? I don't know, just asking.

It seems to me that if someone has apologized, and is behaving in a different manner as before, then he should at least get the benefit of the doubt.

Unless Greg makes some sort of PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT that he has allowed you back on, and under WHAT conditions

Why does Greg have to do this? It's his board, it's his decision to let someone back on or not. Why does he have to justify his decision publicly, with a rationale? I could understand if he was an elected official and we were the voters or something, but he isn't. This is his dictatorship (albeit it a benevolent one).

Just curious. IMO, if Greg decides to let someone back on, it his decision to do so, and he doesn't have to justify it to anyone. Likewise if Greg decides to kick him off again, he doesn't need ot justify it, or announce it, or anything like that.

Chris