And here's why.

> I think if you try to overthink something in a comic book you're just going to ruin it for yourself.

Hey, I'm not the one who's writing Peter as a paparazzo to make him seem more "modern" or "realistic," so don't blame me for bringing these issues up in the first place.

> Case in point: you accept the idea that its ok for Peter to let JJJ use his photos to villify Spider-Man because he's only libelling himself. However, when you think about it, by damaging his own reputation as a hero Pete's making it harder for him to his own job. The public is less likely to trust him, the police waste valuable man power tracking him down instead of going after real criminals, etc.

I absolutely agree with you, which is yet another reason why I was glad to see Straczynski shitcan all of that bullshit during his run. I'll accept that it was "okay" when Peter was younger (and dumber), for the purposes of not having to retcon countless past stories, but bringing back such a contrived, cliche-ridden status quo in the current comics is nothing short of creatively bankrupt.

> Who knows how many lives were lost by making Spidey a less efficient hero because Pete was willing to sabotage himself all for a story conceit?

And now you see why I've had serious problems with that particular story conceit ever since I started reading superhero comics, although Spider-Man isn't nearly bad on that score as Superman, whose secret identity drama I found so totally intolerable that it made me quit ALL comics, superhero and otherwise, when I was EIGHT YEARS OLD, and I stayed quit so firmly that I didn't return to comics until college, when I glanced through a few issues and saw that Lois Lane had finally found out Superman's secret identity, which she SHOULD have known ALL ALONG.

> Simple: he's caught between the proverbial rock and hard place

Except that NO HE'S NOT, for all of the reasons that I cited in my FIRST POST. Taking the solution I suggested would create a more creative and in-character story, and the ONLY reason something like that isn't being used is because editorial mandates are driving the character, rather than the other way around. In other words, he's behaving this way because he has to in order to serve the needs of the story and the status quo that Quesada and company want to stick him in.

> Since doing that takes away from the entire reason for having the Bugle and cast around to use as story conceits, I thought making Pete a science teacher was one of the worse ideas they had.

Quite frankly, unless he's young enough to still be working a part-time job where he's treated like shit, and have that be his primary source of income, without coming across as a total loser (ie. while he's still a student, at either high school or college), I've always really disliked the Daily Bugle as a setting, because it reduces Peter Parker's civilian identity to a Clark Kent variant. Like Venom, Jonah is a decent character, but he's best in small portions, because otherwise, writers will feel compelled either to a) take his established characteristics to ridiculous extremes, or b) try and create "depth" in the characters that, while interesting, really can't be reconciled with any of their previous behavior. If Peter Parker is smart (and he IS, or at least he SHOULD BE), then let's see more of him in an environment that SHOWS this. And if he must remain a "working class" hero, he obviously can't use his big brain to become the next Tony Stark or Reed Richards, so let's put him in a profession that requires smarts AND doesn't pay terribly well.