Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

[BarryAllen]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

Yes. Originally my issue was with how RMA posts - his approach, technique, tone, my perception that it was condescending or "preachy," etc. - but that is about me because I am communicating how it makes me feel.

 

I am sorry, but I don't see why it is wrong for me to communcicate that I dislike someone's approach anymore than I dislike what they say. When you have a conversation with someone "how" you say it can be just as important as "what" you say.

 

This thread has obviously gotten out of hand.

[bb8]

It's like dueling banjos with each opponent refusing to allow the other the last bar.

[nearmint]

The sexual tension in this thread is palpable.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

There you go.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The sexual tension in this thread is palpable.

 

Kinky.

[oakman29]

It is Friday after all..

[BarryAllen]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

There you go.

 

 

Posting style impacts the person you are writing to. How you say something is important.

 

You claim I am missing your points, but clearly you are missing mine as well. Or failing to acknowledge them or discounting them or whatever.

 

There you go.

[gumiho]

For what this thread is worth I will say Justice League 1 just for the heck of it....

[bb8]

It is Friday after all..

[RockMyAmadeus]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

There you go.

 

 

Posting style impacts the person you are writing to. How you say something is important.

 

You claim I am missing your points, but clearly you are missing mine as well. Or failing to acknowledge them or discounting them or whatever.

 

There you go.

 

Give it a rest, rfoiii. Your smokescreens aren't fooling anyone. I didn't post "to you" when you started this mess, and despite your claim that it IS "about you", it's not. You're a troublemaker, and when called on it, a prevaricator. You are disingenuous to the hilt.

 

Read Lazyboy's post again. The answer is right there in front of you.

 

You may have the last word, though you certainly don't need my permission; you'll take it regardless, because that's what you do.

 

Enough already.

[BarryAllen]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

There you go.

 

 

Posting style impacts the person you are writing to. How you say something is important.

 

You claim I am missing your points, but clearly you are missing mine as well. Or failing to acknowledge them or discounting them or whatever.

 

There you go.

 

Give it a rest, rfoiii. Your smokescreens aren't fooling anyone. I didn't post "to you" when you started this mess, and despite your claim that it IS "about you", it's not. You're a troublemaker, and when called on it, a prevaricator. You are disingenuous to the hilt.

 

Read Lazyboy's post again. The answer is right there in front of you.

 

You may have the last word, though you certainly don't need my permission; you'll take it regardless, because that's what you do.

 

Enough already.

 

Pretending to take the high road and dismissing everything I say doesn't make you right.

 

Your "holier than though, high and mighty" approach is all part of your act.

 

You aren't fooling anyone either. Place blame in my direction, but I am not the first, nor the last to find the way you go about posting on here adverse.

 

Here is my last word: "charlatan."

[ttfitz]

Hard to keep up with everything in the thread, but re any knowledge that Goodman may or may not possibly have had of Justice League sales...

 

1) All available info indicates that the title was a very good but not game-changing seller (particularly considering the context of point 2). It certainly wasn't some monster seller that towered over the rest of the DC line.

 

We could quibble over this, but -- in 1961, Archie sold way better. Turok sold better. Blackhawk sold almost as well. Eight other DC titles sold better.

 

2) It had both Superman and Batman in it, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions over why it sold well.

 

EIGHT of the top 10 titles of 1961 were Superman or Batman related, and that's not including Justice League. (incidentally, I think this explains Lois Lane's quick green-light more than any other factor)

 

I can imagine that golf game going something like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "Hey guess what Martin? We launched Justice League and it's already our 9th best selling title! Isn't that amazing? Turns out if you put the two most famous superheroes on the planet on a team with a bunch of our other characters, it does ok!"

 

Goodman thinks: "If a team including the two characters who own the industry can sell well, then a team of complete unknowns will also sell well!"

 

The rest -- history.

 

A nice idea, but Superman and Batman weren't involved in the title until issue #6, which according to RMA's timeline and theory, was much too late to have played into any conversation on sales.

[BarryAllen]

For the record, JLA 1 is the more important book because the "sum of the parts are greater than the whole."

 

While Flash 105 is an undeniably important book, it is not as important as the kick-off title issue of the DC superhero team that will define the DC universe as a whole.

 

It is through the combination of the characters and their interactions as with one another (both within this title and outside of it: ala Green Arrow/Green Lantern, Brave and the Bold with Flash and Green Lantern, Batman/Superman, etc - many more to list) that sets the stage for the grandest of stories within the DC universe. Without the Justice League of America we wouldn't have spectacular stores like: Kingdom Come, Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Final Crisis, 52 or many many others.

 

Flash is one of my favorite heroes of all time, but some of my most cherished stories are from when he is a member of the JLA (Crisis on Infinite Earths, Flashpoint, etc).

 

:shrug: Just my opinion, no facts.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Well, you've made some progress - moved from this being "apocryphal" to an acknowledgment of it's existence.

 

You are mistaken. The "Goodman/Donenfeld golf" story that has been told many times over is to what my original comment referred, not the "Stan Lee quoting Goodman" story.

 

Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding you might have. Since you, yourself, acknowledged that that story was apocryphal, I'm surprised you misunderstood my comment.

 

Let's review, shall we? Here is the original exchange:

 

The shift happened with SC4 (first in a huge reintro of older superheroes) and BB28 (the success of JLA inspired FF1 and the Marvel age). JLA1 then is the first true appearance of JLA in own title. Flash 105 is the second time the Flash has his own title.

 

The "JLA inspired FF" story never happened. It is apocryphal, it didn't occur.

 

As you can see, there is no mention of the "Goodman/Donenfeld golf story"

 

Correct, because that's what I thought others were referring to, since it's a famous story. When it became clear that they were talking about the Goodman/Lee story, I said "oh, ok." and moved on.

 

And? Is it clear now? Did it eventually get cleared up? Yes. Wouldn't all of this have been avoided if you had simply asked "which story?" instead of assuming I was referring to the Goodman/Lee story?

 

Is the goal to increase knowledge and understanding, or is the goal to score points against people we don't like....?

 

 

and your direct response doesn't mention it, either.

 

You'll have to post what response you're referring to.

 

I'm the only one who mentioned it, in my response to you.

 

You're the only one who mentioned the two different stories.

 

No "misunderstanding" on my part - I cannot be expected to respond to something you claim was in your head, only what you type out on the keyboard.

 

Then, rather than making an assumption, why not ask which scenario I was referring to? After these posts in question, the issue of which story was being referred to was clarified. Did you read those? So, no, your later response, after it was clear that everyone was talking about the Goodman/Lee story, rather than the Goodman/Donenfeld story, didn't require any mind reading on your part...it was already posted.

 

So, your "I see we're making progess" when the conversation had moved far beyond that point, and the issue clarified, is the problem. I suspect you didn't read the rest of the thread before making that post. Am I right?

 

I was never referring to the Goodman/Lee story in my original statement, a fact that was cleared up in subsequent posts...so you clearly misunderstood...or didn't read....the subsequent posts.

 

 

But still, it isn't really a "leap", it's what Stan said happened. Once again:

 

"Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'"

 

Whether you call that "inspiring" the Fantastic Four or not is a matter of interpretation, but it DOES speak of direct causality, or "the reason FF exists."

 

One more time...that quote, of and by itself, does not mean that Stan Lee then said "ok, we'll get to work right on it" and then they deliver FF #1 however many weeks/months later.

 

Timely/Atlas/Marvel had already published "teams of superheroes" in the past, so it wasn't anything new to them...it just hadn't been done for quite a while.

 

Whether Goodman actually said that or not (and all we have is Stan's statement, and Stan is an old man, who is known for "misremembering" things that have happened in the past), to say that that comment is the direct causality for FF #1 is still a stretch based solely on that single comment.

 

Starting at the end - you might have missed it, but this statement of Stan's is not something recent, it comes from Origins of Marvel Comics, which was published in 1974.

 

Yes, and this was covered in a subsequent post.

 

So it was likely said barely a dozen years after the events, and Stan was 50 or so at the time - for my sake, I hope this doesn't qualify him as "an old man." Not to say he couldn't possibly be misremembering, but I can't find anyone who thinks that part of the story isn't true.

 

As I said in a subsequent post, the issue is not the age of the comment, nor the age of Stan Lee at the time he repeated it, bur rather its status as hearsay that doesn't correspond with the timeline.

 

Belief in a story doesn't make it true. Corroborating evidence does.

 

As to whether that quote "of and by itself" does not mean Stan agreed and they went on to create the Fantastic Four, that is true; however, once again, the quote is from Origins of Marvel Comics, and is in regards to the creation of the FF. So I would say, yes, it does mean that.

 

Again....a single piece of hearsay that contradicts the evidence doesn't hold up. Two pieces of hearsay doesn't, either.

 

There are conversations that many people on this board don't understand TODAY, and it's written. How much less a spoken conversation, reported as hearsay, several years after the fact, especially when there isn't an corroborating evidence?

[ttfitz]

The issue, of course, is context.

 

Let's assume the statement by Goodman actually happened. The problem is this: how could he possibly know?

 

The timeline looks something like this:

 

 

June-Aug 1956: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned to create Showcase #6, which is the first appearance of Challengers of the Unknown, featuring four characters dressed in the same outfit having "superheroic" adventures. One of the characters is named "Lester 'Rocky' Davis."

 

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

July-Aug 1957: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned and begin work on Showcase #11.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1957: Jack Kirby creates Challengers of the Unknown #1.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown, the first "superhero/adventurer" "tryout" to win their own title. This occurs almost a full year prior to Flash #105. Yes, Lois Lane appears a month or so before Challengers, but Lois isn't a "superhero/adventurer" title; it's a humor title aimed at girls.

 

This is critical. Sales on Showcase #6 and #7 were so good, it convinced Julius Schwartz and Jack Schiff that the characters could sustain their own title. Remember, starting a new title in the 50's was anything but a sure bet, and, as we know, there were Second Class Postage considerations that influenced these decisions.

 

And...because of the way the distribution system worked, DC wouldn't have gotten a good handle on actual sales for Showcase #6 and #7 until well into 1957, many months after they hit the stands. If one considers that Showcase #6 would be removed from the stands around February, 1957, and #7 around April of 1957, returns would have been finalized around April and June respectively, the fact that they commissioned Kirby to create two more "tryout" issues within 1-3 months after finalized sales from Showcase #6 and #7, and then they gave Kirby the go ahead to begin creating a new title 2-3 months after that, attests to the sell-through of those particular issues.

 

They were obviously quite successful. And the title itself lasted throughout the entire Silver Age, 77 issues, all the way until 1971, before being cancelled.

 

Showcase #4, on the other hand, which appeared 4-5 months before Showcase #6, wasn't enough to convince Schwartz to give Flash his own title again....that would require no less than three MORE tryouts (double what it took Challengers) and even then, they took the opportunity to resurrect the old title numbering, rather than giving Flash a #1.

 

YES, the Challengers DID appear two more times in Showcase, but those were published in Sept and Nov of 1957, while Kirby was given the commission to work on what would become Challengers #1. (Published Jan-Feb 1958.) Those two additional "tryouts" would not be in a position to influence the decision to publish Challengers #1....there simply wasn't enough time.

 

(Lois Lane is even more astonishing. From tryout to her own title in the 8 month interval. The response must have been overwhelming.)

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

1958-1959: DC continues to roll out new tryout series, some of which work (Flash, Green Lantern), some of which don't (Suicide Squad.)

 

July 1959: Showcase #22, featuring the second "GA name revival", Green Lantern, is published.

 

Nov-Dec 1959: A full three years after Showcase #6, and almost two years after Challengers #1, The "Justice" superhero team idea is resurrected from the ashes of the Justice Society, which had last been seen 8 years earlier (a lifetime in comics terms in those days.)

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1, after the last tryout issue, Showcase #24, is published six months earlier. At this point, with Challengers #1, Lois Lane #1, Flash #105, Rip, and were proving to be successful. The time between "tryout" and "title" is getting shorter and shorter, as DC was willing to take more and more risks. They were firing on all cylinders at this point.

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months, but I suspect Schwartz wasn't taking that big a risk with JLA and knew it.

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

April-May: DC gets finalized sales results for JLA #3.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

June-July: DC gets finalized sales results for JL #4.

 

June-July 1961: Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

(Early) August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

 

 

Now...as the timeline makes clear, DC was having a tremendous amount of success, and what would be called "the Silver Age" was well on its way for DC. But, as mentioned before, because of the way the distribution system worked...long before the internet, long before trade papers, long before anyone really had any idea how to gauge sales fairly quickly...DC wouldn't have had sales results for #1 until around Jan of 1961. They certainly wouldn't have had sales results back for even issue #4 before Stan and Jack begin work on FF #1.

 

So....the question becomes this: if we accept Stan Lee's quote of Martin Goodman's quote at face value....repeated here:

 

Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'

 

...the question of how could Goodman possibly have known this, when even DC ITSELF didn't? At the time FF #1 was created, DC had sales information for, at best, 3 issues of this new title. And, even if you consider B&B #28-30, that's SIX issues, total, over a span of a year. And DC has never been in the habit of sharing sales results with the public.

 

 

Do you think Goodman polled a reasonable sample of newsstands? Do you think he did any research to find out how well JLA was selling compared to other titles? How did Goodman manage to pick out JLA, out of all the other books DC was publishing at the time, including a TEAM of "superheroes" by the name of "Challengers of the Unknown" which, by the time FF #1 was created, had TWENTY issues published...?

 

From the Wikipedia article on The Fantastic Four:

 

Michael Uslan, in a letter published in Alter Ego #43 (December 2004), pp. 4344, writes: "Irwin Donenfeld said he never played golf with Goodman, so the story is untrue. I heard this story more than a couple of times while sitting in the lunchroom at DC's 909 Third Avenue and 75 Rockefeller Plaza office as Sol Harrison and [production chief] Jack Adler were schmoozing with some of us... who worked for DC during our college summers.... [T]he way I heard the story from Sol was that Goodman was playing with one of the heads of Independent News, not DC Comics (though DC owned Independent News). ... As the distributor of DC Comics, this man certainly knew all the sales figures and was in the best position to tell this tidbit to Goodman. ... Of course, Goodman would want to be playing golf with this fellow and be in his good graces. ... Sol worked closely with Independent News' top management over the decades and would have gotten this story straight from the horse's mouth."

 

I see. So, it is Michael Uslan, repeating a story that Sol Harrison told him, repeating a story that either Goodman and/or one of the heads of IND.told him, that now is shoehorned into somehow demonstrating that Goodman now had access to sales information, for a book not yet four issues old, even though it is not explicitly stated that such information was, in fact, shared with Goodman, though he was in contact with someone who was "in the best position" to know.

 

 

Sure, that will stand up in court.

 

"I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who got it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, I swear!"

 

I would take such a bit of research by a historian who looked into the question over the suppositions made by someone on a comic collecting forum, sure.

 

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver? Are you unaware that some of the best researchers, statisticians, and historians in the industry post here?

 

Sure. Have any of them posted here on this subject?

 

I'm going to point it out again, because it bears repeating: Michael Uslan repeating a story he heard from Sol Harrison repeating a story he heard from either Goodman and/or a head of IND. is the very definition of hearsay. It hardly qualifies as "research."

 

I suspect even Michael Uslan would take issue with your categorizing his statement as "research." He said, himself: " [T]he way I heard the story from Sol...", which means it is, at best, anecdotal, and fourth hand hearsay.

 

The timeline I posted? That is research.

 

It absolutely is. However, your suppositions about the meaning of that research is not. It's just your guess, made without any first hand knowledge.

 

And Michael Uslan didn't just make an offhand remark about it, he went looking for answers, which seems like research to me.

 

You asked how Goodman could possibly know; I responded with some evidence of just that. Which is correct I will leave to others to decide.

 

And I counter that this evidence is fourth hand hearsay, and doesn't answer the question at all. Instead of relying on Uslan, via Harrison, via Goodman and/or an unnamed head of IND, why don't we ask the people who actually had the conversation?

 

Except, of course, we can't, because they're dead, which is why it wouldn't hold up in court. It is impossible to impeach either Goodman or the "head of IND." on the validity of any of these statements.

 

Got anything else?

 

Sorry, I missed that this conversation was "in court."

 

Once again, I'm more comfortable with "fourth hand hearsay" that is a reasonable explanation (which I have not seen contradicted by anyone involved first-hand) than with a theory that you have come up with on a "no hand" basis. I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

There you go.

 

 

Posting style impacts the person you are writing to. How you say something is important.

 

You claim I am missing your points, but clearly you are missing mine as well. Or failing to acknowledge them or discounting them or whatever.

 

There you go.

 

Give it a rest, rfoiii. Your smokescreens aren't fooling anyone. I didn't post "to you" when you started this mess, and despite your claim that it IS "about you", it's not. You're a troublemaker, and when called on it, a prevaricator. You are disingenuous to the hilt.

 

Read Lazyboy's post again. The answer is right there in front of you.

 

You may have the last word, though you certainly don't need my permission; you'll take it regardless, because that's what you do.

 

Enough already.

 

Pretending to take the high road and dismissing everything I say doesn't make you right.

 

Your "holier than though, high and mighty" approach is all part of your act.

 

You aren't fooling anyone either. Place blame in my direction, but I am not the first, nor the last to find the way you go about posting on here adverse.

 

Here is my last word: "charlatan."

 

[BarryAllen]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.

 

There you go.

 

 

Posting style impacts the person you are writing to. How you say something is important.

 

You claim I am missing your points, but clearly you are missing mine as well. Or failing to acknowledge them or discounting them or whatever.

 

There you go.

 

Give it a rest, rfoiii. Your smokescreens aren't fooling anyone. I didn't post "to you" when you started this mess, and despite your claim that it IS "about you", it's not. You're a troublemaker, and when called on it, a prevaricator. You are disingenuous to the hilt.

 

Read Lazyboy's post again. The answer is right there in front of you.

 

You may have the last word, though you certainly don't need my permission; you'll take it regardless, because that's what you do.

 

Enough already.

 

Pretending to take the high road and dismissing everything I say doesn't make you right.

 

Your "holier than though, high and mighty" approach is all part of your act.

 

You aren't fooling anyone either. Place blame in my direction, but I am not the first, nor the last to find the way you go about posting on here adverse.

 

Here is my last word: "charlatan."

 

 

[ttfitz]

This whole argument is ridiculous. Even if you believe the JLA did directly inspire the creation of the FF, FF1 and JLA 1 both just stem from the introduction of the JLA in BB 28. There's nothing that special about JLA 1 by itself (Despero? )

 

I'd put it with ASM 1. The tryout phase was successful so they're launching it as its own title. Same as Flash 105, really. A lot of the importance of these DC 'number ones' comes from the relative dearth of true first appearances vs Marvel. But I still think they're cool.

 

But ASM #1 was published a mere 6 months after Amazing Fantasy #15 hit the stands. I thought that was much too soon to have any idea how successful a book was?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver? Are you unaware that some of the best researchers, statisticians, and historians in the industry post here?

 

Sure. Have any of them posted here on this subject?

 

Yes.

 

I'm going to point it out again, because it bears repeating: Michael Uslan repeating a story he heard from Sol Harrison repeating a story he heard from either Goodman and/or a head of IND. is the very definition of hearsay. It hardly qualifies as "research."

 

I suspect even Michael Uslan would take issue with your categorizing his statement as "research." He said, himself: " [T]he way I heard the story from Sol...", which means it is, at best, anecdotal, and fourth hand hearsay.

 

The timeline I posted? That is research.

 

It absolutely is. However, your suppositions about the meaning of that research is not. It's just your guess, made without any first hand knowledge.

 

My "suppositions" about the "meaning" of that research aren't suppositions at all.

 

Are you genuinely trying to claim that there WAS enough time for Goodman to have heard that "JLA was selling better than most" based on the facts?

 

Really...?

 

So, with sales data from THREE issues, Goodman somehow knows that sales data, and can then tell Stan "Hey, JLA is selling better than most"?

 

There were three issues. Six if you count Brave & Bold, which is a separate title.

 

What "interpretation" is required in that? What "guesswork" is required to see that sales data from only three issues does not very many solid conclusions make?

 

And Michael Uslan didn't just make an offhand remark about it, he went looking for answers, which seems like research to me.

 

He went looking for answers...?

 

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

He, himself, acknowledges "The way I heard the story from Sol..."

 

He was relating a story, an anecdote. He did not interview Goodman. He did not interview Sol. He was relating a STORY in a letter.

 

That is not research.

 

 

You asked how Goodman could possibly know; I responded with some evidence of just that. Which is correct I will leave to others to decide.

 

And I counter that this evidence is fourth hand hearsay, and doesn't answer the question at all. Instead of relying on Uslan, via Harrison, via Goodman and/or an unnamed head of IND, why don't we ask the people who actually had the conversation?

 

Except, of course, we can't, because they're dead, which is why it wouldn't hold up in court. It is impossible to impeach either Goodman or the "head of IND." on the validity of any of these statements.

 

Got anything else?

 

Sorry, I missed that this conversation was "in court."

 

Once again, I'm more comfortable with "fourth hand hearsay" that is a reasonable explanation (which I have not seen contradicted by anyone involved first-hand) than with a theory that you have come up with on a "no hand" basis. I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves.

 

Fourth hand hearsay isn't admissible in court, because it's someone relating a story to someone who relates it to someone.

 

It doesn't stand up to reason, because you can't go to the source and say "did you say this?"

 

If you can't go to the source, then it's as legitimate as the telephone game.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

 

And, I know I've said this a million times before, but it's necessary to repeat it again: it is always incumbent upon the claimant to prove their claim (that would be you, and in this case, that JLA #1 was the direct cause of FF #1), not the challenger to DISprove it.

 

That's debate 101.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This whole argument is ridiculous. Even if you believe the JLA did directly inspire the creation of the FF, FF1 and JLA 1 both just stem from the introduction of the JLA in BB 28. There's nothing that special about JLA 1 by itself (Despero? )

 

I'd put it with ASM 1. The tryout phase was successful so they're launching it as its own title. Same as Flash 105, really. A lot of the importance of these DC 'number ones' comes from the relative dearth of true first appearances vs Marvel. But I still think they're cool.

 

But ASM #1 was published a mere 6 months after Amazing Fantasy #15 hit the stands. I thought that was much too soon to have any idea how successful a book was?

 

Are you being purposely obtuse? What is your goal, here, ttfitz, to share and increase knowledge, or to score points against people you don't like?

 

Allow me to repeat:

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1, after the last tryout issue, Showcase #24, is published six months earlier.

 

And:

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months,

 

Six months is too soon for those outside the company to know if a book is a success. It's not too soon for the company itself.

 

 

And, point of order, ASM #1 was published 7 months after AF #15, not 6. The devil's in the details.

 

If you're not going to be reasonable in the conversation, why waste everyone's time?