RockMyAmadeus

I said that at 78. Let's just say the results of this thread and the consensus on which was the first TT will have been thoroughly explored. I only see 31 pages... 37 for me.

No where does Robin say they formed a team "after BB 54." To the contrary, when Robin informs Batman that they formed a team, he refers to the adventure told in BB 54 as the team's first adventure. Just like the Avengers formed a team "after the adventure with Loki" in Avengers 1, Robin says they formed a team "after the adventure in Hatton's Corner." In short, in both cases they formed the team because of those adventures and those adventures are the team's first adventures. Or do you think the first Avengers adventure was in Avengers 2 and the adventure in Avengers 1 was the adventure of a "prototype" group? This was a point I wanted to make. "After the adventure in Hatton's Corner" doesn't have to mean "after B&B #54." The "adventure in Hatton's Corner" was over once Mr. Twister was stopped. So, anytime after that particular event ended is "after the adventure." It doesn't necessarily have to be after the issue is over. It could very well have occurred between panels. Since, ya know, we're making those kinds of arguments...

You constantly ascribe nefarious motives to everyone who disagrees with you. If people are changing resources online to reflect the fact that #60 is the Teen Titans' first appearance, it's likely because they believe that to be correct, not because of some sinister "market manipulation." I don't know if SFCD has ascribed nefarious motives in other discussions, so I can't say if he "constantly ascribes" them, but at the very least, he does allow that it is only a possibility, rather than a foregone conclusion, by saying "if that is what is happening." How do you know? How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Because it "seems reasonable"? History has proven, countless times, that what "seems reasonable" isn't the motive behind most human behavior. SFCD doesn't say beyond any doubt that that is what is happening, he only says that it looks like that is what is happening, and any reasonable person should be inclined to agree: if the choice of motives is between genuine belief and self-interest, self-interest wins (almost) every time. And....it doesn't even have to be one or the other, and can be a combination of both (and more!) No, you say, unequivocally, that SFCD is wrong, and others are right, despite SFCD's position having the weight of the very author of the original story and decades of tradition behind him, while these nouveau deconstructionists seek to change nearly every accepted definition in this hobby, for purposes one can only guess at. SFCD allows for the possibility that his view on those making changes may be just perception; you allow no such thing. And you're calling him screwy....? That doesn't seem very fair, does it? I almost took this seriously until I realized you are just doing an Onion-style parody of SFCD. Well done. No.

You constantly ascribe nefarious motives to everyone who disagrees with you. If people are changing resources online to reflect the fact that #60 is the Teen Titans' first appearance, it's likely because they believe that to be correct, not because of some sinister "market manipulation." I don't know if SFCD has ascribed nefarious motives in other discussions, so I can't say if he "constantly ascribes" them, but at the very least, he does allow that it is only a possibility, rather than a foregone conclusion, by saying "if that is what is happening." How do you know? How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Because it "seems reasonable"? History has proven, countless times, that what "seems reasonable" isn't the motive behind most human behavior. SFCD doesn't say beyond any doubt that that is what is happening, he only says that it looks like that is what is happening, and any reasonable person should be inclined to agree: if the choice of motives is between genuine belief and self-interest, self-interest wins (almost) every time. And....it doesn't even have to be one or the other, and can be a combination of both (and more!) No, you say, unequivocally, that SFCD is wrong, and others are right, despite SFCD's position having the weight of the very author of the original story and decades of tradition behind him, while these nouveau deconstructionists seek to change nearly every accepted definition in this hobby, for purposes one can only guess at. SFCD allows for the possibility that his view on those making changes may be just perception; you allow no such thing. And you're calling him screwy....? That doesn't seem very fair, does it? Who are you? Have you hurt RMA? Is he still alive? You are arguing in favour of memory (some interview from how long after the fact) and "tradition" started by... somebody? Again, Haney wrote BB 60, which includes a panel which suggests the Teen Titans did not exist in name or form until after BB 54. Certainly BB 54 was a step in that direction, but most journeys require more than one step. Haney is still the author. That's not the same as, say, Joe_Collector "remembering" that ASM #129 sold on eBay for $25 in 1999. I completely doubt that this much thought was given to the situation by Haney when he wrote these books, and he certainly wasn't trying to make a definitive claim on when (B&B #54, "sometime between" B&B #54 and #60, or #60) the Teen Titans actually became the Teen Titans. The team worked. They added Wondy in #60 and came up with a name. They may not have been "the Teen Titans" by name in #54, but clearly #54 is the genesis of the team, from whence the idea came. Call it a prototype, call it a preview, call it an after-the-fact retcon, but the origin of the team...by reference, author intent, and tradition...is #54.

Now you're just being stubborn...

You constantly ascribe nefarious motives to everyone who disagrees with you. If people are changing resources online to reflect the fact that #60 is the Teen Titans' first appearance, it's likely because they believe that to be correct, not because of some sinister "market manipulation." I don't know if SFCD has ascribed nefarious motives in other discussions, so I can't say if he "constantly ascribes" them, but at the very least, he does allow that it is only a possibility, rather than a foregone conclusion, by saying "if that is what is happening." How do you know? How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Because it "seems reasonable"? History has proven, countless times, that what "seems reasonable" isn't the motive behind most human behavior. SFCD doesn't say beyond any doubt that that is what is happening, he only says that it looks like that is what is happening, and any reasonable person should be inclined to agree: if the choice of motives is between genuine belief and self-interest, self-interest wins (almost) every time. And....it doesn't even have to be one or the other, and can be a combination of both (and more!) No, you say, unequivocally, that SFCD is wrong, and others are right, despite SFCD's position having the weight of the very author of the original story and decades of tradition behind him, while these nouveau deconstructionists seek to change nearly every accepted definition in this hobby, for purposes one can only guess at. SFCD allows for the possibility that his view on those making changes may be just perception; you allow no such thing. And you're calling him screwy....? That doesn't seem very fair, does it?

You should go see this if you haven't already. Probably will. Thanks for the head's up.

You can read slabbed copies if you want to...just takes an extra 5 minutes to break them out.

A guy leaves the country for a couple of weeks, and this place goes to Pink Floyd hell.

I suppose people will be referring to page counts on the board forever, even though page count is different for everyone who doesn't have their post/page counts set to the default of "10." Referring to post count, rather than page count, is the only way to ensure that everyone is looking at the same number. I also suppose that repeating this multiple times still won't get people to realize, and make adjustment for, that fact.

If there's one person who is an absolute authority on continuity, it's definitely Bob Haney. I guess we're going to leave out the very next thing said in the interview ? CATRON: And, of course, Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad. HANEY: Yeah, the first Teen Titans. CATRON: Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans. It was just a three-way team-up, apparently. HANEY: Right. I came up with the name.Teen Titans. Haney's unprompted recollection of BB54 as the "first Teen Titans" is a lot more significant to me than Catron's comment. Especially given Haney's recollection that BB54 resulted from his editor's directive to come with a JJLA issue (in line with what DC hinted they'd do 24 issues earlier) and it was only "later" that the group was instead dubbed with the name he came up with: Teen Titans. Catron had nothing to do with the creation of the group, so your bolding of Catron's comment to obscure Haney's unprompted recollection just tells me how desperate you are to muddy the waters. So you purposely leave out pertinent parts of the discussion between the 2 individuals, skewing information to again to try and be right, then at the same time decide to be the arbiter of what should be viewed as relevant and what shouldn't and I'm the desperate one ? I guess Haney agreeing with these statements is irrelevant because he can't think for himself. Continue using hyperbole including disparaging comments to people, it's really helping to prove your point. When Haney was shown BB54 he reacted, without any prompting, by stating: "Yeah, the first Teen Titans." Catron's immediate response? "Right." So do you think Catron agreed that BB54 was the first Teen Titans? It sure looks like it under your theory that saying "Right" is an adoptive admission of what was said before. Here's the transcript again: CATRON: And, of course, Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad. HANEY: Yeah, the first Teen Titans. CATRON: Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans. It was just a three-way team-up, apparently. HANEY: Right. I came up with the name.Teen Titans. Me, however, I think you have to read a conversation with the recognition that some of what people say is clear and some is ambiguous. And what's clear about this conversation is that when shown BB54, Haney's immediate reaction was "Yeah, the first Teen Titans." Catron then said "Right," apparently agreeing that BB54 was the "first Teen Titans." You, I think, would disagree that this is what Catron meant because it would contradict your reading of the passage. Then Catron said "Before they were called the Teen Titans," a factual statement that all of us can agree with. And then Catron made a wishy washy and vague statement that could, if read one way, contradict the "Right" he'd uttered a few second before: "It was just a three-way team-up, apparently." [What Catron did not say is: "BB60 is really the first appearance of the Teen Titans." So it is by no means clear that his last statement was intended to contradict his apparent agreement that BB54 is the "first Teen Titans."] Haney then confuses things further by saying "Right," without indicating what it is he's saying "Right" in response to. Could be Catron's agreement that BB54 was the "first Teen Titans," and/or Catron's statement that BB54 was before they were called the Teen Titans, and/or Catron's statement it was "just a three-way team-up, apparently." It could be one, two or all three. Haney does, however, make a clear statement that "I came up with the name Teen Titans," which strongly indicates that all Haney was agreeing with was Catron's statement about BB54 pre-dating the name Teen Titans. In short, if you're being intellectually honest, you have to admit that the only clear statements made by Haney in that interview were: (1) BB is "the first Teen Titans" and (2) "I came up with the name Teen Titans." Anything else we might infer was said by Haney (or Catron) is based on speculation as to what they meant when they said "Right." So, no, this interview doesn't help you at all. Especially, when you consider what else Haney said about the creation of the Teen Titans in other interviews. Like I said, this is a desperate attempt. This is stated better.

If there's one person who is an absolute authority on continuity, it's definitely Bob Haney. I guess we're going to leave out the very next thing said in the interview ? CATRON: And, of course, Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad. HANEY: Yeah, the first Teen Titans. CATRON: Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans. It was just a three-way team-up, apparently. HANEY: Right. I came up with the name.Teen Titans. Haney's unprompted recollection of BB54 as the "first Teen Titans" is a lot more significant to me than Catron's comment. Especially given Haney's recollection that BB54 resulted from his editor's directive to come with a JJLA issue (in line with what DC hinted they'd do 24 issues earlier) and it was only "later" that the group was instead dubbed with the name he came up with: Teen Titans. Catron had nothing to do with the creation of the group, so your bolding of Catron's comment to obscure Haney's unprompted recollection just tells me how desperate you are to muddy the waters. So you purposely leave out pertinent parts of the discussion between the 2 individuals, skewing information to again to try and be right, then at the same time decide to be the arbiter of what should be viewed as relevant and what shouldn't and I'm the desperate one ? I guess Haney agreeing with these statements is irrelevant because he can't think for himself. Continue using hyperbole including disparaging comments to people, it's really helping to prove your point. I'm confused as to what you think was the "disparaging comment" that sfcityduck made to you in this post...? Is calling you "desperate to muddy the waters" a "disparaging comment"...? If so, I think you're overreacting. Haney's remarks do indeed carry much more weight than Catron's, because Haney is the one who wrote the stories in question. Yes, absolutely Haney's comments are far, far more relevant. That should go without saying. You have misred Haney's statements as "agreeing with (Catron)", even though Catron himself doesn't say it was NOT the Teen Titans...he says they hadn't been named yet, and it was "just a three-way team-up, apparently." After all...Catron doesn't say "Right. Before they became the Teen Titans." He says "Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans." That's a significant difference, and Haney's response might have been, too, if Catron was making the former, and not the latter, claim.

If there's one person who is an absolute authority on continuity, it's definitely Bob Haney. I guess we're going to leave out the very next thing said in the interview ? CATRON: And, of course, Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad. HANEY: Yeah, the first Teen Titans. CATRON: Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans. It was just a three-way team-up, apparently. HANEY: Right. I came up with the name.Teen Titans. Haney did not contradict himself in the span of two sentences. He didn't say "the first Teen Titans" and then immediately say in the next breath "except, it wasn't the Teen Titans at all." Haney's only saying that he came up with the name, in reply to Catron saying "Before they were called the Teen Titans." No, he explicitly says "the first Teen Titans", referring to issue #54.

This has been addressed, as you probably guessed. DC was using the term "team" at this time to describe the team-ups in this title. They didn't switch to "team-up" until later. For example, here's an ad for the very first team-up, in #50, describing how every issue of the title is going to feature a new "team": Incorrect. The above ad you link discusses the concept of having "two heroes," "teamed' together. Which is different than announcing a "new team" of superheros as we see in the last panel of BB54 -- a comic which clearly falls outside the concept announced this ad which is limited to "two heroes from the DC hall of fame." This isn't really the case. The idea wasn't "two heroes teamed together"...it was heroes teamed together, and for B&B #50, it happened to be two of them. There is nothing in the ad that suggests that the concept was limited to two characters...in fact, it implicitly states otherwise, by leaving the team-up suggestions up to the readers...which probably explains B&B #54. DC may have intended for the team-ups to be limited to "two heroes", but this limitation...if it ever existed...was dropped by the 3rd issue of this new "title."

You've misunderstood. I almost flipped past it because I didn't register that it was a 35 cent variant. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a Fair, with detached cover, I would have bought it. But, I had other things on my mind, and it was like "ok, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6WHOAWAITAMINUTELOOKAT#4AGAINISTHATA35CENTVARIANTOMGYESITIS!!!" And that was on Friday near close of day, after people had been looking through it all day Thursday and Friday.

B&B was a team-up title starting with issue #50, but it didn't become a Batman team-up title until issue #67.

Cave Carson And Hawkman. From B&B to Mystery in Space to his own mag. ...with a single sojourn in the Atom.

Cave Carson Enemy Ace (OOAW and Showcase.)

I'll bet Blowie enjoyed every sandwich.

There are all SORTS of lovely, niche fields of rare items in the otherwise sea of common material that is the 70's, 80's, and 90's in comics...and you don't even have to go to the Undergrounds to do it. If one wants to enjoy the thrill of the hunt, one doesn't have to restrict themselves to just scarce Gold/early Silver material.

A little thick on the hype...and how do they know only 5 exist? Accounted for is not the same thing as exists. I think there were 5 copies that had been acknowledged in public, until I posted mine (the 6th) here on the boards in June. This book is very closely tracked, because it's believed to be so scarce... However, RMA is right. I'm sure there are some others tucked quietly into collections, and probably more sitting unrecognized out there. I found mine quite inexpensively at the 2nd day of a fair-sized con, where it was obviously bypassed by many, many people before I saw it and recognized it for what it was. Still, I'd say this by far the rarest Whitman. Easily the rarest of the DCs, and probably also rarer than any of the 8-12/80 pre-pack issues. Yes, it's a very, very rare issue....but, much like the harder to find pre-packs, if the broader collecting public becomes aware of it, more copies will surface. That's the good thing about this kind of "offer": it makes people stop and say "it's worth HOW much?" (even if it really isn't.) There are more out there, sitting in boxes, waiting for someone to come along and recognize it. I pulled a Star Wars #4 35 cent variant out of a dealer's box earlier this year....for $1. It was the first and only 35 center I've found in the wild. I almost flipped past it, too, but my brain stem screamed at me "STOP, YOU FOOL!!! LOOK AGAIN!!" There is so much I'd like to ask someone who worked at Whitman during these years, but I fear that may never be.

Same buyer bought from me recently, was mostly concerned about packaging in his/her communications. Got the book and he/she even paid extra for additional shipping charges and left very positive feedback for me. eBay should have new categories of feedback: very positive, and very negative. Think of the possibilities! Glad you had a good transaction with them. In my experience, picky buyers like this aren't worth the sale, especially if they're going to make a fuss over a low dollar item. There are people out there who are good buyers, but they feel like they always need to get some kind of deal, even if it's just 5 or 10%. I don't want to turn down those potential customers because of that, even if it's just a low dollar item..

Yes, very sexy. But it's missing a few signatures...

www.imgflip.com Knock yourself out! Memes can be a lot of fun.

You will believe whatever it is you wish to believe, and will judge as you see fit, regardless of whether what you believe jibes with reality or not. The only question is why it bothers you so much that you make an issue of it. You, like many people around here, take things far too personally and see "wound up" where there isn't anything wound at all. "Talking a lot" doesn't mean "wound up." Fingh's a great example: I don't interact with him at all, and he takes fairly regular shots at me. Who, in that example, is the "wound up" one...? Fingh has a chip on his shoulder where I am concerned, so why would you take what he has to say about me under consideration..? (Answer: because you are offended that I put you on ignore.) Is that "wall of text"-y enough, or need I say more? I'm only reasoning with you, Buzz, so take it or leave it, but you really ought not to let it bother you so much. If you didn't care...you wouldn't have said anything at all, much less multiple responses about it. EDIT: But just to see if you're honest, I've taken you off ignore. If you're really interested in hashing it out, send me a PM, and we can hash it out. If you aren't interested, then man up and let it go completely. Despite what some may think and say, I am a reasonable man who can be reasoned with, and that's demonstrated in all that I post. Are you...?