Silver Age Hierarchy - 13th to 15th

[RockMyAmadeus]

You asked why there was "no splurge of creativity from DC or anybody else in the interim."

 

I corrected you.

 

Simple as that.

 

Take off your Marvel Zombie blinders....there's a bright, beautiful 4-Color world out there, waiting to be discovered.

 

(Oh, and if you'd been buying SILVER AGE books, and didn't hear about Showcase #4, you were incredibly sheltered.)

 

You see, RMA, here is an example of why so many people on the boards dislike you.

 

It's your arrogant, condescending tone laced with insults, many times over matters of peoples' opinions , not facts.

We've all seen you do it repeatedly to people here.

 

In this case it is what my opinion of which books are important. My opinion is just that. It is not wrong or debatable by you.

So when I said "yes, really", it means just that.

 

I've given you a chance to show some value on here over the past months, but it's time to try to put you on mental ignore. If that doesn't work, the real thing.

 

Consider seeking help on your compulsive, neorotic tendencies to argue with people and insult.

 

Have a good life.

 

 

You see, marvelcollector, here's where you and so many of your fellow compatriots fail to comprehend even basic dialogue.

 

Why? Because there was not a single insult in that statement up there.

 

You think that if someone disagrees with you, they're "attacking" you and "insulting" you. You think if someone calls out a silly statement that they're being "arrogant" and "condescending."

 

Then, when you were RIGHTFULLY corrected with your poorly educated comments (and they were, and I shan't use "ignorant" because that perfectly good word has been abused and now has an "insulting connotation"), instead of saying "oh...yeah, I guess I forgot/didn't know about all that creativity that DC had between Showcase #4 and FF #1", you snidely reply with a "oh, yeah, like THOSE are classics."

 

Whether they are classics or not (and most of them are) is utterly irrelevant.

 

You stated that DC had no "splurge of creativity" between SC #4 and FF #1.

 

You were wrong.

 

I corrected you.

 

That doesn't make me "arrogant" or "condescending" (unlike your snide "like THOSE are classics" remark. )

 

A mature man would have said "oops. I guess I was wrong. Duly noted."

 

You, on the other hand, decided to whine and complain and make it about me.

 

Oops.

 

You're allowed to have your opinion. No one is taking that away from you.

 

But somewhere along the line, the "right to an opinion" has become enshrined to the point that everyone not only has a right to an opinion (no matter how ludicrous), but also a right to not have anyone challenge that opinion.

 

And, frankly, that's just lunacy.

 

Lots of people were of the opinion that the earth is a flat disc around which the sun, moon, and stars rotate. Some still are.

 

How valid is that opinion? Do you see the connection, here? Not all opinions are created equal. There are opinions which are, in fact, demonstrably wrong.

 

I am genuinely sorry that your ego (and those like you) is so delicate that you cannot have a rigorous debate without getting upset. Truly. It is, after all, just debate.

 

You and your ilk read wayyyyyyyyy too much into what's posted, you read things that aren't there, and you frankly have chips on your shoulders the size of Mt. Rushmore. You LOOK for insults where none are to be found. S'ok, I've been guilty of the same thing in the past.

 

DO lighten up, sir. If you can't, then by all means, please do ignore me. I wouldn't want to cause you any more stress than is necessary.

 

(thumbs u

 

PS. Since I missed the last Board Spokesman Election, please try to refrain from using the word "we" in referring to how others think, and just speak for yourself.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Everybody says this retroactively, but if this were so true, why was there a 5 year gap between Showcase 4 and FF1? And no splurge of creativity from DC or anybody else in the interim?

 

Actually there was quite the splurge of creativity from comic publishers between Showcase 4 and Fantastic Four 1:

 

DC

 

Challengers of the Unknown

Supergirl

Legion of Superheroes

Space Ranger

Adam Strange

Rip Hunter

Green Lantern

Sea Devils

Hawkman

Atom

 

Archie

 

Fly

Jaguar

 

Charlton

 

Captain Atom

 

 

I forgot about Supergirl..and Brainiac!

[Hepcat]

There's no excuse for that. One of them had green skin and the other one had a nice rack.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's no excuse for that. One of them had green skin and the other one had a nice rack.

 

 

She was quite pretty, wasn't she...? Quite risqué for the late 50's...

 

[Speedy-D]

You asked why there was "no splurge of creativity from DC or anybody else in the interim."

 

I corrected you.

 

Simple as that.

 

Take off your Marvel Zombie blinders....there's a bright, beautiful 4-Color world out there, waiting to be discovered.

 

(Oh, and if you'd been buying SILVER AGE books, and didn't hear about Showcase #4, you were incredibly sheltered.)

 

You see, RMA, here is an example of why so many people on the boards dislike you.

 

It's your arrogant, condescending tone laced with insults, many times over matters of peoples' opinions , not facts.

We've all seen you do it repeatedly to people here.

 

In this case it is what my opinion of which books are important. My opinion is just that. It is not wrong or debatable by you.

So when I said "yes, really", it means just that.

 

I've given you a chance to show some value on here over the past months, but it's time to try to put you on mental ignore. If that doesn't work, the real thing.

 

Consider seeking help on your compulsive, neorotic tendencies to argue with people and insult.

 

Have a good life.

 

 

You see, marvelcollector, here's where you and so many of your fellow compatriots fail to comprehend even basic dialogue.

 

Why? Because there was not a single insult in that statement up there.

 

You think that if someone disagrees with you, they're "attacking" you and "insulting" you. You think if someone calls out a silly statement that they're being "arrogant" and "condescending."

 

Then, when you were RIGHTFULLY corrected with your poorly educated comments (and they were, and I shan't use "ignorant" because that perfectly good word has been abused and now has an "insulting connotation"), instead of saying "oh...yeah, I guess I forgot/didn't know about all that creativity that DC had between Showcase #4 and FF #1", you snidely reply with a "oh, yeah, like THOSE are classics."

 

Whether they are classics or not (and most of them are) is utterly irrelevant.

 

You stated that DC had no "burst of creativity" between SC #4 and FF #1.

 

You were wrong.

 

I corrected you.

 

That doesn't make me "arrogant" or "condescending" (unlike your snide "like THOSE are classics" remark. )

 

A mature man would have said "oops. I guess I was wrong. Duly noted."

 

You, on the other hand, decided to whine and complain and make it about me.

 

Oops.

 

You're allowed to have your opinion. No one is taking that away from you.

 

But somewhere along the line, the "right to an opinion" has become enshrined to the point that everyone not only has a right to an opinion (no matter how ludicrous), but also a right to not have anyone challenge that opinion.

 

And, frankly, that's just lunacy.

 

Lots of people were of the opinion that the earth is a flat disc around which the sun, moon, and stars rotate. Some still are.

 

How valid is that opinion? Do you see the connection, here? Not all opinions are created equal. There are opinions which are, in fact, demonstrably wrong.

 

I am genuinely sorry that your ego (and those like you) is so delicate that you cannot have a rigorous debate without getting upset. Truly. It is, after all, just debate.

 

You and your ilk read wayyyyyyyyy too much into what's posted, you read things that aren't there, and you frankly have chips on your shoulders the size of Mt. Rushmore. You LOOK for insults where none are to be found. S'ok, I've been guilty of the same thing in the past.

 

DO lighten up, sir. If you can't, then by all means, please do ignore me. I wouldn't want to cause you any more stress than is necessary.

 

(thumbs u

 

PS. Since I missed the last Board Spokesman Election, please try to refrain from using the word "we" in referring to how others think, and just speak for yourself.

RMA, I dig your posts, I've got you as a followed poster, I got no beef with you. But do you really not understand when you're being condescending and sarcastic?

 

Take off your Marvel Zombie blinders

that's condescending, and serves to dismiss marvelcollector's opinions

 

there's a bright, beautiful 4-Color world out there, waiting to be discovered.

that's condescending and facetious

 

you were incredibly sheltered

that's condescending, and serves to dismiss marvelcollector's opinions

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA, I dig your posts, I've got you as a followed poster, I got no beef with you. But do you really not understand when you're being condescending and sarcastic?

 

Um...no. Where do you see that I said, or implied that...?

 

Go on, check. I'll wait here.

 

/sarcasm.

 

If you're talking about this sentence: "You think if someone calls out a silly statement that they're being "arrogant" and "condescending."", that was a general reply to his general statement that "this is why board posters don't like you", not a specific reply to my post above.

 

(thumbs u

 

Take off your Marvel Zombie blinders

that's condescending, and serves to dismiss marvelcollector's opinions

 

Sure it is and does. That's because marvelcollector's "opinion" was based on total ignorance (using the actual meaning of that word) of what DC did during the Silver Age. Having an opinion based on INCOMPLETE information is a BAD opinion, it is a POOR opinion, it is an ILL-EDUCATED opinion, and that makes it subject to legitimate critique. Do you not agree?

 

It's condescending and dismissive on purpose. I gave MC several chances to modify his statements, and instead of doing so, he became snide (<-----please note who became condescending FIRST.) And you think I don't know when I'm being condescending? Do you think I'm stupid? (Honest question, there.)

 

You might notice, I gave MC a chance to back out...he chose to ignore it. Go on, go back and read....it's all there.

 

Remember:

 

I'm sorry, but anybody that puts ASM 1 lower than 6th, after AF 15, Hulk 1, FF1, TOS 39 and JIM 83 is just ...

 

You're screwy, according to MC, if you disagree with this.

 

I'm sorry, who was being condescending, then...? And yet, MC decides to take ME to task for "being condescending"...? Really...?

 

 

there's a bright, beautiful 4-Color world out there, waiting to be discovered.

that's condescending and facetious

 

you were incredibly sheltered

that's condescending, and serves to dismiss marvelcollector's opinions

 

No, my friend, THAT was not condescending in any way. There really IS a bright, beautiful 4-Color world out there, waiting to be discovered. Marvel is not the end-all, be-all of the Silver Age. There is a beautiful, whole wide world of material published between 1956 and 1970 that does NOT have Atlas/No-Name/MCG/Marvel Comics Group on the cover.

 

I mean that quite sincerely.

 

And being involved in the Silver Age for several years and never hearing about Showcase #4 IS incredibly sheltered.

 

I came into comics knowing NOTHING about them, and I found out about Showcase #4 within 2-3 months of being in the hobby. Why? Because I educated myself. I read everything ABOUT comics I could get my hands on.

 

Showcase #4 is FOUNDATIONAL to the SA. That's like collecting GA, and never hearing about Action #1.

 

So, no, it wasn't condescending, nor was it intended to be.

 

Really, man, do you really think I'm so stupid that I "don't know" when I'm being sarcastic or condescending? Or would you PREFER I acted out of ignorance, not liking the implications otherwise...?

 

Seems Speedy-D is subject to some misinterpreting of his own, eh...?

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, and I LOVE Marvel Silver Age, lest someone try to claim otherwise.

 

[Speedy-D]

You see, marvelcollector, here's where you and so many of your fellow compatriots fail to comprehend even basic dialogue.

 

Why? Because there was not a single insult in that statement up there.

 

You think that if someone disagrees with you, they're "attacking" you and "insulting" you. You think if someone calls out a silly statement that they're being "arrogant" and "condescending."

At the very very very least, this implies that you weren't being condescending. It's completely natural to read the above and interpret it thus.

 

Also, you must understand that just because something is true, or probably true, doesn't mean that stating it can't be condescending. "You were incredibly sheltered" is a condescending statement.

 

This is all totally obvious and not really worth discussion. You even admit, right after you told me you weren't being condescending, that saying "Take off your Marvel Zombie blinders" was condescending. RMA: "Sure it is."

 

Anyway, I'm sure you agree with me.

[RockMyAmadeus]

You see, marvelcollector, here's where you and so many of your fellow compatriots fail to comprehend even basic dialogue.

 

Why? Because there was not a single insult in that statement up there.

 

You think that if someone disagrees with you, they're "attacking" you and "insulting" you. You think if someone calls out a silly statement that they're being "arrogant" and "condescending."

At the very very very least, this implies that you weren't being condescending. It's completely natural to read the above and interpret it thus.

 

If you consider the broad "this is why people on the boards dislike you", then, no, such an interpretation is NOT natural, but I can concede that it might appear that way within the confines of this particular discussion (even ignoring the broadness of the "this is why people on the boards dislike you.")

 

There are quite a few people who like me precisely because of the reasons MC and his pals dislike me.

Also, you must understand that just because something is true, or probably true, doesn't mean that stating it can't be condescending. "You were incredibly sheltered" is a condescending statement.

 

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. Sorry. I'm sure it can be looked at as condescending by people looking to be insulted.

 

This is all totally obvious and not really worth discussion. You even admit, right after you told me you weren't being condescending,

 

You need to understand the difference between a general comment, and a specific comment. You're confusing the two. (Unless you think my "Um...no" meant "I'm not being condescending" rather than what it really is, which was answering your question asking if I really didn't understand when I was being condescending and sarcastic." Reading comprehension is PARAMOUNT.)

 

that saying "Take off your Marvel Zombie blinders" was condescending. RMA: "Sure it is."

 

Anyway, I'm sure you agree with me.

 

I'm sure.

 

The difference is, *I* know what I'm thinking, and precisely when I'm being condescending or not...you may be able to tell, but it's *always* best to confirm. If someone wants to psychoanalyze me in public, they best be prepared to get the bull by the horns. It's totally inappropriate, and the usual response by someone who feels they have lost the argument, and thus must divert attention to the character of their opponent, rather than the substance of the debate. People dislike me NOT because I'm "condescending", but because I challenge their cherished notions, and THAT pisses people off. Oh well.

 

Before you convict me, remember:

 

I'm sorry, but anybody that puts ASM 1 lower than 6th, after AF 15, Hulk 1, FF1, TOS 39 and JIM 83 is just ...

 

(thumbs u

[Speedy-D]

Again, it's hardly worth the bother, as I'm sure you're well aware of this, but when you say something you gotta be prepared to have listeners interpret it. Don't go getting all "horny"* on someone when they read between your lines.

 

As for your last statement, duh! Everyone knows the most important comics of all time are Showcase 4, 8, 13, & 14, followed by The Flash 105-350!

 

 

 

* Get it? 'Cuz you said "get the bull by the horns," and then I was witty and turned it into weak sexual innuendo, thereby disarming you, and...

[tth2]

It's the first issue of the single most important Marvel character ever. That makes it a top fiver in my book, top ten minimum

I think that`s so overrating the "#1" on ASM #1, Bill. ASM #1 is really ASM #2, Marvel just discontinued Amazing Fantasy and started up ASM. It`s such a completely cosmetic thing.

 

Suppose Marvel had continued Spiderman in Amazing Fantasy the same way they continued Thor in JIM rather than his own title? Would you then say AF #16 was a top 5 book? If so, why such importance for a 2nd appearance? Would the significance of the book really diminish that much because it didn`t have a #1 on it? It`s still Spidey`s own title. It`s like saying Detective wasn`t Batman`s title because it wasn`t named "Batman".

 

But Tim, Marvel didn't do that. So it is #1. AF 15 is his first appearance, but that is unrelated to ASM 1 in my view. Batman 1 still carries tons of clout, and it isn't diminished by Tec 27.

My point is that it`s a totally cosmetic and artificial distinction. Whether the rose is numbered #1 or #16, it`s still a 2nd appearance.

 

It`s not just my anti-Marvel or anti-Spidey bias either. Personally, I consider B&B 29 to be much more desirable than JLA 1, Showcase 8 more than Flash 105, Showcase 23 more than GL 1, etc.

[Flash105]

That is a hard one to chew on. SC 8 for sure. BB 29 - I really don't like the book. SC 23 I really don't like the book. I don't think people look at Flash 105 and say hey it's his fifth appearance. I think they look at it and say hey this is the first issue of his own title.

[ciorac]

It's the first issue of the single most important Marvel character ever. That makes it a top fiver in my book, top ten minimum

I think that`s so overrating the "#1" on ASM #1, Bill. ASM #1 is really ASM #2, Marvel just discontinued Amazing Fantasy and started up ASM. It`s such a completely cosmetic thing.

 

Suppose Marvel had continued Spiderman in Amazing Fantasy the same way they continued Thor in JIM rather than his own title? Would you then say AF #16 was a top 5 book? If so, why such importance for a 2nd appearance? Would the significance of the book really diminish that much because it didn`t have a #1 on it? It`s still Spidey`s own title. It`s like saying Detective wasn`t Batman`s title because it wasn`t named "Batman".

 

But Tim, Marvel didn't do that. So it is #1. AF 15 is his first appearance, but that is unrelated to ASM 1 in my view. Batman 1 still carries tons of clout, and it isn't diminished by Tec 27.

My point is that it`s a totally cosmetic and artificial distinction. Whether the rose is numbered #1 or #16, it`s still a 2nd appearance.

 

It`s not just my anti-Marvel or anti-Spidey bias either. Personally, I consider B&B 29 to be much more desirable than JLA 1, Showcase 8 more than Flash 105, Showcase 23 more than GL 1, etc.

 

Interesting perspective, and I respect your view and passion on the topic. I just simply see the #1 issue, regardless of what appearance number it might be, for characters of the magnitude of Spider-Man, GL, Flash et al, is much more important to the hobby in an historical context than you seem to.

 

FWIW, I think JLA 1, GL 1, Flash 105, are infinitely more important than their second apps in Showcase, and much more desirable to me personally. I'd take Superman 1 over Action 2 any day in the week.

 

The #1 carries tons of power in this hobby.

[bababooey]

It's the first issue of the single most important Marvel character ever. That makes it a top fiver in my book, top ten minimum

I think that`s so overrating the "#1" on ASM #1, Bill. ASM #1 is really ASM #2, Marvel just discontinued Amazing Fantasy and started up ASM. It`s such a completely cosmetic thing.

 

Suppose Marvel had continued Spiderman in Amazing Fantasy the same way they continued Thor in JIM rather than his own title? Would you then say AF #16 was a top 5 book? If so, why such importance for a 2nd appearance? Would the significance of the book really diminish that much because it didn`t have a #1 on it? It`s still Spidey`s own title. It`s like saying Detective wasn`t Batman`s title because it wasn`t named "Batman".

 

But Tim, Marvel didn't do that. So it is #1. AF 15 is his first appearance, but that is unrelated to ASM 1 in my view. Batman 1 still carries tons of clout, and it isn't diminished by Tec 27.

My point is that it`s a totally cosmetic and artificial distinction. Whether the rose is numbered #1 or #16, it`s still a 2nd appearance.

 

It`s not just my anti-Marvel or anti-Spidey bias either. Personally, I consider B&B 29 to be much more desirable than JLA 1, Showcase 8 more than Flash 105, Showcase 23 more than GL 1, etc.

 

Interesting perspective, and I respect your view and passion on the topic. I just simply see the #1 issue, regardless of what appearance number it might be, for characters of the magnitude of Spider-Man, GL, Flash et al, is much more important to the hobby in an historical context than you seem to.

 

FWIW, I think JLA 1, GL 1, Flash 105, are infinitely more important than their second apps in Showcase, and much more desirable to me personally. I'd take Superman 1 over Action 2 any day in the week.

 

The #1 carries tons of power in this hobby.

TTH1 would agree with you on this, TTH2...not so much.

[ciorac]

It's the first issue of the single most important Marvel character ever. That makes it a top fiver in my book, top ten minimum

I think that`s so overrating the "#1" on ASM #1, Bill. ASM #1 is really ASM #2, Marvel just discontinued Amazing Fantasy and started up ASM. It`s such a completely cosmetic thing.

 

Suppose Marvel had continued Spiderman in Amazing Fantasy the same way they continued Thor in JIM rather than his own title? Would you then say AF #16 was a top 5 book? If so, why such importance for a 2nd appearance? Would the significance of the book really diminish that much because it didn`t have a #1 on it? It`s still Spidey`s own title. It`s like saying Detective wasn`t Batman`s title because it wasn`t named "Batman".

 

But Tim, Marvel didn't do that. So it is #1. AF 15 is his first appearance, but that is unrelated to ASM 1 in my view. Batman 1 still carries tons of clout, and it isn't diminished by Tec 27.

My point is that it`s a totally cosmetic and artificial distinction. Whether the rose is numbered #1 or #16, it`s still a 2nd appearance.

 

It`s not just my anti-Marvel or anti-Spidey bias either. Personally, I consider B&B 29 to be much more desirable than JLA 1, Showcase 8 more than Flash 105, Showcase 23 more than GL 1, etc.

 

Interesting perspective, and I respect your view and passion on the topic. I just simply see the #1 issue, regardless of what appearance number it might be, for characters of the magnitude of Spider-Man, GL, Flash et al, is much more important to the hobby in an historical context than you seem to.

 

FWIW, I think JLA 1, GL 1, Flash 105, are infinitely more important than their second apps in Showcase, and much more desirable to me personally. I'd take Superman 1 over Action 2 any day in the week.

 

The #1 carries tons of power in this hobby.

TTH1 would agree with you on this, TTH2...not so much.

 

[tth2]

It's the first issue of the single most important Marvel character ever. That makes it a top fiver in my book, top ten minimum

I think that`s so overrating the "#1" on ASM #1, Bill. ASM #1 is really ASM #2, Marvel just discontinued Amazing Fantasy and started up ASM. It`s such a completely cosmetic thing.

 

Suppose Marvel had continued Spiderman in Amazing Fantasy the same way they continued Thor in JIM rather than his own title? Would you then say AF #16 was a top 5 book? If so, why such importance for a 2nd appearance? Would the significance of the book really diminish that much because it didn`t have a #1 on it? It`s still Spidey`s own title. It`s like saying Detective wasn`t Batman`s title because it wasn`t named "Batman".

 

But Tim, Marvel didn't do that. So it is #1. AF 15 is his first appearance, but that is unrelated to ASM 1 in my view. Batman 1 still carries tons of clout, and it isn't diminished by Tec 27.

My point is that it`s a totally cosmetic and artificial distinction. Whether the rose is numbered #1 or #16, it`s still a 2nd appearance.

 

It`s not just my anti-Marvel or anti-Spidey bias either. Personally, I consider B&B 29 to be much more desirable than JLA 1, Showcase 8 more than Flash 105, Showcase 23 more than GL 1, etc.

 

Interesting perspective, and I respect your view and passion on the topic. I just simply see the #1 issue, regardless of what appearance number it might be, for characters of the magnitude of Spider-Man, GL, Flash et al, is much more important to the hobby in an historical context than you seem to.

 

FWIW, I think JLA 1, GL 1, Flash 105, are infinitely more important than their second apps in Showcase, and much more desirable to me personally. I'd take Superman 1 over Action 2 any day in the week.

 

The #1 carries tons of power in this hobby.

What can I say, I'm a substance over form kind of guy!

 

No dispute that my view is definitely a minority view in this hobby. It probably all stems from the fact that I was a big Captain America collector when younger and it always irritated the hell out of me that Iron Man #1 was considered more valuable than Captain America #100, even though they were both the first issue of their own titles after the TOS run. The only difference is that one had a #1 on the cover and the other had a #100, but it seemed to make all the sense in the world.

[tth2]

It's the first issue of the single most important Marvel character ever. That makes it a top fiver in my book, top ten minimum

I think that`s so overrating the "#1" on ASM #1, Bill. ASM #1 is really ASM #2, Marvel just discontinued Amazing Fantasy and started up ASM. It`s such a completely cosmetic thing.

 

Suppose Marvel had continued Spiderman in Amazing Fantasy the same way they continued Thor in JIM rather than his own title? Would you then say AF #16 was a top 5 book? If so, why such importance for a 2nd appearance? Would the significance of the book really diminish that much because it didn`t have a #1 on it? It`s still Spidey`s own title. It`s like saying Detective wasn`t Batman`s title because it wasn`t named "Batman".

 

But Tim, Marvel didn't do that. So it is #1. AF 15 is his first appearance, but that is unrelated to ASM 1 in my view. Batman 1 still carries tons of clout, and it isn't diminished by Tec 27.

My point is that it`s a totally cosmetic and artificial distinction. Whether the rose is numbered #1 or #16, it`s still a 2nd appearance.

 

It`s not just my anti-Marvel or anti-Spidey bias either. Personally, I consider B&B 29 to be much more desirable than JLA 1, Showcase 8 more than Flash 105, Showcase 23 more than GL 1, etc.

 

Interesting perspective, and I respect your view and passion on the topic. I just simply see the #1 issue, regardless of what appearance number it might be, for characters of the magnitude of Spider-Man, GL, Flash et al, is much more important to the hobby in an historical context than you seem to.

 

FWIW, I think JLA 1, GL 1, Flash 105, are infinitely more important than their second apps in Showcase, and much more desirable to me personally. I'd take Superman 1 over Action 2 any day in the week.

 

The #1 carries tons of power in this hobby.

TTH1 would agree with you on this, TTH2...not so much.

 

I hadn't realized that I was subconsciously predisposed to #2s!