I don't want you to unquestionably adore comics. I don't unquestionably adore comics. But I don't understand what purpose this is serving or what message it is supposed to get across. All I'm saying is, this has got to be exhausting for you. You seem to approach virtually every single storyline and writer with an accusatory eye. It seems like there can be irony, no authorial intent without it being automatically deemed an offensive assault on the existing audience. And sure, I agree, there are creators who hold us in contempt. But I take them example by example - I don't indict, say, the whole of Dan Slott or Peter David's work just because I dislike their involvement with OMD/BND or the current downturn on X-Factor. Even Mark Millar did Swamp Thing. Good writers make bad choices sometimes. Then they can make good choices again. It is not Good or Evil. You're right, it's not absolutes, but I think you're distilling creators to that.
Let's not forget that Waid, Simone, etc., all s_d darlings, are also "Name Brands" at this point. Yet we do not shun them. Why? Because brand or not, people think they are good. So if it's arrogant for Morrison to want creative latitude on an established character, why is it then editorial's fault if, say, Christopher Priest wants more latitude on Cap and the Falcon and doesn't get it? Why isn't Priest an arrogant SOB too? Or Gail on Wonder Woman? Keith Giffen and John Rogers(?) doing Blue Beetle - what if they want to do something radical with Booster Gold? Why isn't that arrogant as well, just like Morrison? Who among us is the arbiter for good writers and bad writers, which ones deserve freedom and which don't? It's not me - is it you?