For the record, Egomaniac (I'm not even going to waste my time calling you "MOTA" anymore), Superman & Batman isn't worth my time to read. Jeph Loeb hasn't written anything worthwhile since mid-2001, and not even the considerable talents of McGuinness and Turner can disguise the weakness of his writing. He's completely lost any sense of how to successfully revive pre-Crisis Superman elements and as of "OWAW," he has absolutely no idea how to write a decent story anymore. The man's become a parody of himself. And you think I should waste my money on that? Please. DC's botched Supergirl TWICE already (Matrix/Linda, Cir-El); I have no faith in their ability to pull off a revival of Kara (be she Kryptonian or Argoan).
Secondly, I stopped buying Birthright when I ditched DC last year. In fact, DC's disgraceful treatment of Birthright was the final straw for me. It was a great story, a terrific melding of all the different eras of Superman (yes, including the Byrne/Jurgens era you so sycophantically assert is inherently superior to anything on the planet), and I got sick of seeing DC treat it like the plague. John Byrne was given DC's full support when he updated Superman in 1986, so why shouldn't Waid have gotten that support? Instead he got knifed in the back, and you and your fellow zealots' incessant bashing and shrieking was no help, either. Add to that the cancellation scare that erupted circa issue #5 (or perhaps you don't remember that?), and I got tired of watching something I was enjoying get mauled and defamed for no reason. I only stuck it out for Trinity (another excellent book that got unjustly skinned alive) because it was just three issues, and I was already two-thirds into it. Waid and Wagner poured their hearts and best efforts into those stories and paid the character the highest possible honors, and what thanks did they get? Selfish screaming. Endless bleating about how evil they were to even DARE to contradict the Great God Byrne. I'm still ticked about that, and I don't see my attitude changing any time soon.
As for the mainline books, they aren't worth my time. it's just going to be more of the same formulaic, repetitive, soap-opera/lockstep continuity crap that's been the Superman books' stock-in-trade since 1993. I have no reason to believe that Azzarello, Rucka, and Austen are going to better the books (and I already know that Austen's Superman is going to be utter bilge, based on his past work). I'm sick of getting the exact same gruel shoveled at me over and over again. That's partly why I loved Trinity and enjoyed what I read of Birthright; they were a breath of fresh air. And as for your "those who don't share MY vision of Superman can all go choke" line (which you've repeated at least twice now)...you once again prove my point about you being an intolerant, hate-spewing sycophant. You want to dictate what other people's likes and opinions should be, and you're hell-bent on destroying anyone who doesn't toe your "Byrne/Jurgens only" line. You WON'T respect the opinions of others, and you hypocritically screech about how YOUR Superman is infallible and must never be changed while castigating those who have their own favorite incarnations. More and more, you show what utter filth you really are, and you give me more reasons to hate your guts.
Go ahead and enjoy your regurgitated, formulaic gruel. But don't you DARE tell me I have to enjoy it, too.
And furthermore: Byrne's Superman was NOT faithful to "the concept" (which you've already proven your hatred of, with your "Siegel and Shuster got Superman all wrong, Byrne/Jurgens in the only version to get it right" line). Siegel and Shuster's Krypton was a utopia. Their Clark was a nerdy mask for Superman. Their Superman was never a jock. They fully intended to make him Superboy as a kid (albeit one who was a practical joker who loved playing pranks on people). Their Luthor was a public enemy of the worst kind. Byrne trashed all of this stuff and replaced it with what he and Wolfman cooked up. What was in the Silver Age was, while sometimes excessive, completely in the spirit of what Siegel and Shuster started. Byrne's version tossed out a lot of what Siegel and Shuster did and replaced it with his own vision. You don't really give a damn about "the concept." What you're REALLY sticking up for is BYRNE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT, and you know it. So shut your mouth and keep it shut. You're not fooling anybody with your lies and doubletalk.
