I haven't read those, in fact there's probably tons of his stuff that I haven't read, but I thought his Wonder Woman run was awful and the Spider-Man: Chapter One stuff in the late 90's was fairly dire too. His FF stuff was okay, but as I said above, nothing special. 

Byrne's Starlord was (if memory serves) the first outing of the Claremont/Byrne/Austin team, in Marvel Preview #11 (later reprinted, at least once, in a special color issue).

It's a neat swashbuckling SF romp with all the freshness and energy of the first Star Wars movie. John brings his signature starships and spacesuits as well as weird looking aliens, with a few amazing scenes set on alien planets. It's really worth tracking down.

Where does that put Jerry Ordway? Jackson Guice? Kieron Dwyer and all the other people in mid 80s/early 90s that did the Superman era books?  Would you call them Perez imitators or they more Byrne? They all sort of blend their styles....

Again, you jumped to 'hate'.

Naughty naughty, untrue.  Don't pull a 'milo yiannopoulos' on me, please.    

Since Kieron Dwyer was Byrne's step son im sure he got a lot of his style from Byrne. I never really thought Ordway really imitated Perez or Byrne. And Jackson Guice always seemed to have his own style as well though i have seen some of his cover art to be reminiscent of Bill Sinkiecwich. I know i butched his last name and i apologize.

again, loathe is not hate.  I loathe ware's work (and his callous self-promotion) but don't hate either him or his work, and drawing a destinction between the two, and critiquing sans sugar-coating is a privilege that one earns after sacrifices made in freelancing for comics.  Just as Harlan Ellison earned in narrative fiction.  It's not possible to answer this thread's question under your philosophical requirements.  Art quality judgements happen every hour, not merely every day, in auction houses, insurance firms, galleries, and more.  

Such happens to Byrne art, judged against other artists and in fact judged - page by page, year by year - against his own art.

This very thread is in fact a defacto debate upon the merits of Byrne, or lack thereof.

Many loathe him, or despise him, for his worldview and tenets.

Many more in the world despise and loathe Caravaggio in exactly the same way for the same reasons.  Yet the work and the artist's oft-repugnant philosophies are separate.

James' question, like this thread's subtextual question, was valid from the outset because the art-valuation-machine exists and will never go away.  the 'you still posted a very strong negative statement about Perlin' line is in fact exactly what James asked for; he's the author of the thread, not you.  If you are emotionally uncomfortable with this thread or what it implies, your complaint is with him, and should be taken up with him, not myself, and not use complaints towards my posts to  serve as 'anti-platforming' James, without debating James yourself.

And as an ex free-lancer I'd be happy to DEBATE Perlin's merit (or lack thereof) with you on a real-life-experience basis.  Since debate is not 'berzerkely' @$%#!! claptrap, and won't stymie this thread.

because 2 of my greatest heroes, Gore Vidal and Harvey Milk, were fab debaters, and in fact helped evolve debate (vs sjw passive aggressive shut-down tactics) into a public-media art form.

This thread about Byrne dovetails with james' thread, james has posted here, you've complained to me here re harsh crique (in both threads, to me), so I answer using james' thread as well, in context.  Since here, there has also been steely-evaluation of Byrne, as much as any other thread which broaches 'who sucked, when, and why?'.