No, I hear you and you're right. He's always been an uptight guy, and I've never been a huge fan. For me, his up and leaving of his wife and baby with almost no (if I'm wrong please correct me) explanation to play super hero again with his not dead anymore ex was so beyond him being an emo dick. 

The discussion over Shooter in charge needs to be reminded of the differences which exist in the real work place. Creativity/artistic leanings versus business/financial. There are few jobs where both are so intertwined yet causing such intense friction. In the other artistic worlds whether music or novels or such the companies regularly sign/release/drop/and resign based on "sales" or that artist is forced to try and promote or sale for themselves many times.Needless to say artistic people are not functioning within the real work place as many of us do. In the "good old days" it was financial that ran everything for the most part: so if you wanted to get paid you had to perform to the work "standards" of the time. That meant monthly deadlines, fulfilling a contracted obligation in the style and form the company asked/required. If you didn't fit that puzzle piece then you were out of work and looking any and everywhere for a job. 

Shooter was given a position from higher up the chain and likely his job was to do what they instructed and that was his function. Almost military in style: follow the orders from on top without questioning or altering. you don't have a say in any part, just to do what you are instructed. And should you not fulfill those demand then you are not meeting the job requirements and you will be let go. That is the way hierarchy works here in the hospital i work at. While we are here to take care of the patient, there are many responsibilities and tasks and commitments for each employee that must be fulfilled daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and so on to provide good patient care and if you are not doing these duties then you are written up and if it continues then terminated.  Not always a nice and comfortable atmosphere to work within but necessary at times to keep things functioning on a large scale.

I won't address any specifics of artists/writers versus Shooter leadership other than to say that mostly in the real world you work within the job as it demands and/or if you cannot then you have the choice to leave. Many of us remain in demeaning jobs at times because the option of no pay isn't a very good choice to follow. The artistic viewpoint can sometimes be the art is more important than the job. Which if you are a company creating a monthly product which is based on sales then it speaks to itself if the monthly comic which you write or draw isn't selling then it directly is a result of your efforts. You cannot fault a company for wanting its product to sell to its best and fullest capabilities. That is what Shooter was being paid to do: have employees/staff toe the company line as the owners say. Was it right or wrong was never part of their concern. To show respect for artists and writers that built the company should be a consideration, but how long do you continue utilizing/protecting an under-performing employee who by show of sales is benefiting from past glory? It doesn't occur too often in the real work place that i am aware of. 

Hoping i expressed this properly without setting off a firestorm of controversy. It is a deceptively easy argument which carries a lot of anger, frustration and passion for many. In comic books like work: i usually follow this practice: don't discuss pay, politics, religion or personal viewpoints unless you are willing to agree not to agree. There is no winning in any of these. Each person believes they are right and if you cannot accept another's viewpoint or thoughts then don't open for discussion. 

Which is my way of saying that i appreciate this board more than other i have ever seen. We are all functional adults expressing ourselves and our viewpoints through intelligent discussion while learning new things from said conversations!

I loved Maddie, I loved how she clearly was not Jean, I loved how Scott had grown beyong his loss and come to love someone else... someone he clearly stated he was glad was not Jean reincarnated.

I couldn't hate him for what he did... It was so grossly out of character that I just waited for the powers that be to come to their senses and put an end to this nonsense.

It never came!

Luckily Scott managed to become interesting again in recent years, just before they decided to kill him again.

Then it might entirely be my perception from media outside the comics as far as reaching that conclusion. Which I am perfectly willing to admit my pre1990's X-Men knowledge is very limited. It might also have to do with the Logan, Jean, Scott General Hospital love triangle being the one commonality that ruins anything about those three characters interacting. It even survived the alternate reality of Age of Apocalypse which was its one major annoyance.

Serves him right, for trusting Conway with... anything.

Your perception is accurate, adam, because Scott was depicted as a jerk from X-Factor #1 to Whedon's astonishing X-Men... a long period indeed. But his jerkiness was retroactively imposed on a character that was anything but weak and selfish. 

The love triangle is also something that was retconned into the X-people mythology (back in the reprint title "classic X-Men", after Jean had died the first time). Prior to that, Logan had shown a comic and doomed infatuation with Jean, who had responded with amused contempt. (Logan would even grow out of that infatuation when he fell in love for real with Mariko Yashida). Chris Claremont then decided it would be interesting to retcon Jean into having been sexually attracted to Logan, and several other writers decided to build and build on that. Eyuch.

Unfortunately for the character, it is Scott's emotionally starved, dependent and self-doubting persona that became well-known in the late '80s and '90s. It even made it unto the big screen.

That can't be easy. Those things are HUGE!