Why would that thread be bad?  Whether it's in the affirmative or the negative how is discussion of the artform and the influence of the creators, positive or negative, a bad thing?

It's not like anyone is walking up to Neal or Jack and shitting on their sneakers.  

So rebut the thesis.  You disagree.  That means you can have a discussion regarding the merits of both sides. 

Can't the same be said of most threads?  Reptisaurus seems to think this is worthy of deeper analysis than a throwaway remark in that thread.  

There's nothing wrong with a provocative thread title. It worked in this case to spark discussion. By having its own thread , it can be discussed entirely before the topic is changed.

Yes, when I think of Neal Adams, I think of Batman with a rim of yellow across part of his body indicating a distant light source.

Not even close....

I just want to weigh in, briefly (yeah, right!). I grew up with Adams and his influence; well, his influence more at DC, in the look of Batman. In many ways, I preferred his work to what I would see at Marvel, as it had a power and dynamism, and the art was interesting to look at. However, I do think he was guilty of style over substance in his stories. Whether that is a result of over-indulgence or trying to prop up what he felt was a weak sctript could be open for debate. Like most artists, he had his favorite tropes. His storytelling could be bad. Quite frankly, thentire Continuity line was a mess, both in writing and much in art. The coloring in them always struck me as really weird and the pages were often a violent mess. In that, I think he had a negative influence on some of the younger artists who followed and got lazy. However, much of that continuity work was Adams reworking pages drawn by assistants or overtly inking other artists work (usually young artists). I personally feel he destroyed Esteban Maroto's work, with his Zero Patrol reworking of Maroto's classic Cinco Por Infinito.

All of that said, there is a ton of great Neal Adams work out there, with some great pieces beyond the superhero genre. As said, he was great at mystery/horror and he also did some fine western work. He could do urban crime adventure. I do think he was better when focused on comics, in his own work, rather than flitting in and out with advertising work and producing comics as a side (which is one of the problems with Continuity, as a publisher).

I do think you could level some of the same criticisms to Steranko, where the image was often more important to the story. Colan I would say less so, as he brought a cinematic touch to his work, but still kept it, generally, in service to the story.

In regards to Kane's interview, I've read several with him. It's no surprise he was Chaykin's mentor. He is an opinionated guy; but, that what also made him one of the innovators, as he held the work to a higher standard than many of his contemporaries. He could be quite curmudgeonly, though. I do think he is write that many left the field for greener pastures. The examples of Gaiman, Whedon and Straczynski, though, don't quite work in the same context as Peter David, nor of the writers who left, permanently. Whedon and Straczynski were fans who came into comics to dabble in something they loved; but, it was not their main priority. Gaiman moved into the prose world and only dabbled in the odd comic piece, when time allowed. Comics became secondary when his literary career took off. Peter David was someone who kept a firm hand in both areas. However, he was mostly doing licensed work in the book world, as his own projects were never the sellers that his Star Trek or Marvel books were. He is one of those writers who is better at playing in someone else's sandbox than building his own. Many writers and artists left permanently, as there was more money in advertising, animation, tv, film, etc.. Some did drop back buy, especially when invited or when retired from their higher paying gigs. Agesim also played heavily into that, as many were pushed aside for younger creators and moved on to replace and build income.