Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not demanding proof of a negative. I'm demanding proof of claims that Dan WAS acting of his own free wil.
The assertive claim comes from those claiming that Dan was "acting under duress."
You've made a claim (an incredibly asinine one) and are now asking others to prove otherwise.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Obviously as DAn saying it might be further masking any duress if it does indeed exist, and Marvel saying it would be the same, evidence from a trusted third party source that knows what they're doing would work.Know however that even if you are wrong (and I'm not saying that you are for sure) it will not destroy your credibility. Simply being wrong on one matter does not mean that you are wrong on every matter. If you find evidence to prove your claims I will apologize to you for my being wrong.
I will apologize now for the insults I hurled at you as well.
So you want me to find a 'trusted' third party source that was there when Marvel didn't force him to recant?
Originally posted by Silent MasterA third party site that debunks claims like nvr made would work.
So you want me to find a 'trusted' third party source that was there when Marvel didn't force him to recant?
And yes there are third party sites that are used for debunking claims:
http://snopes.com/
Snopes is an example of a third party site that debunks wild claims.
This is an example of the evidence I will accept to prove your claims that Dan recanted of his own free will.
Originally posted by KK the GreatI've made no such claims. I'm asking for proof of the claim that dan did it of his own free will. Now are you going to continue trolling and attempt to weasle out of your claim or an admission that you might be wrong (If you can't find evidence it doesn't mean that he didn't do it of his own free will) or are you going to get to proving your own claims without this spin and strawman (I'm not claiming that their was duress.)
The assertive claim comes from those claiming that Dan was "acting under duress."You've made a claim (an incredibly asinine one) and are now asking others to prove otherwise.
The notion of Marvel forcing Dan Jurgens to recant an opinion he voiced on a message board is ridiculous on the face of it, but to grant the theory more weight than it deserves, it simply doesn't stand up to reason.
The "recanting" took place in February of 2004.
By that time, Michael Oeming had already been slated to take over for Jurgens on Thor. His run on the book was effectively over, and it was the only book he was writing for Marvel at the time.
Marvel had no leverage with which to force Dan Jurgens to recant his private opinions. He was finishing up the sole book he was writing for them, and he had only DC work lined up for the future.
Originally posted by KK the GreatBecuase you have evidence to support your claims?
The notion of Marvel forcing Dan Jurgens to recant an opinion he voiced on a message board is ridiculous on the face of it, but to grant the theory more weight than it deserves, it simply doesn't stand up to reason.
Great! Let's see it and I will apologize for being wrong.
Originally posted by KK the GreatThat however does not look like the evidence I requested.
The "recanting" took place in February of 2004.By that time, Michael Oeming had already been slated to take over for Jurgens on Thor. His run on the book was effectively over, and it was the only book he was writing for Marvel at the time.
Marvel had no leverage with which to force Dan Jurgens to recant his private opinions. He was finishing up the sole book he was writing for them, and he had only DC work lined up for the future.
For all we know ther emight have been a clause in a conract. It wouldn't neccicerily be a threat of job security.
This is speculation just as much as "Dan was free from worry of losing his job."
Now where is you evidence?
Originally posted by KK the GreatSo its reasonable to demand evidence from never, but its not reasonable to demand evidence from the two of you?
That's an unreasonable request, and I think you know it.
You don't see a flaw with this reasoning? He makes a claim and is expected to back it. You make a claim and when you can't prove it's unfair?
Originally posted by Silent MasterWanna prove the claim that that's the only way they could do it by questioning either Dan or Marvel?
A third party site would have to question Marvel and Dan in order to prove or debunk the claim and you have already stated you will not take their word.
Originally posted by Silent MasterI gave you an example. Now it seem like you're stalling. Is there some reason you haven't brought proof of your claims?
So again, give me an example of what proof you would actually accept and I'll see what I can do.
Don't say its because you don't know what I want, I told you what I want. I want something that proves your claims that would not be circular reasoning.