Not a fan of his work at all.
However, at least initially with the tweets it sounded as if he had some legitimate points about DC (points I've read others, including George Perez and Judd Winnick, make as well).
As such, I can't blame him for getting riled at Brevoort for, basically, sticking his nose into it.
However, I can't fathom what set him off at Snyder (even if I agree with him to some extent that Batman's built in audience is going to guarantee a writer a certain level of success no matter who that writer is).
As for "the good old days," some of this is a result of the instant world of internet.
In the old days if an artist or writer quit DC or Marvel they might, naturally, spout off to their buddies while pissed off, cool down and then say something more subdued in the official press. But now, they jump on twitter before they calm down and send that shit out to everyone. Or they call up/email Rich Johnston or some other blogger.
Really, I see little difference between this and the various feuds in the pre-internet days that were transcribed in the "Blood and Thunder" letters section of the COMICS JOURNAL.
Or JOURNAL interviews, for that matter.
One interview in particular (COMICS JOURNAL 53, of Harlan Ellison, got an angry backlash from dozens of comics professionals, and a costly lawsuit by Michael Fleisher, that lasted nearly a decade and nearly bankrupted THE COMICS JOURNAL/Fantagraphics.)
So even though the delayed-time of offline writing and publishing comments arguably allows creators to pull back and comment with calmer heads, they often still don't.
Perez, Wolfman, Moench, Colan, Byrne, Claremont and many others in pre-internet days certainly pulled no punches in the printed versions of their feuds with Marvel, Jim Shooter, or each other.
