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

[ttfitz]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics. And while Evanier did not call Lee a liar, his statement does take Lee's "memory" that much further away from being a piece of solid and eyewitness testimony (which it never was to begin with).

 

You and I differ on the meaning of Evanier's full statement on the matter, but that's fine.

 

As for the "evidence from the timeline and sales figures", I don't disregard them, I just don't find them persuasive. On the timeline, it is my understanding that even RMA concedes that there is enough time for someone in-the-know to decide how well a book is selling, so the only question there is whether Goodman could have gotten that information. I believe that to be likely, you perhaps don't, which is also fine.

 

In regards to the sales figures, let's look at those. The argument seems to be JLA wasn't really a big seller, so why would anyone single out that book to tell Goodman about, or why would Goodman want to copy that idea? As has been pointed out, in 1961 it was #13 in sales, well below the Superman and Batman titles, and on a par with other DC titles like Detective, Flash, Blackhawk, and Green Lantern. And what was Marvel's top seller at the time? Tales to Astonish, ranked down at #40, with average paid circulation barely more than half of JLA. It would seem likely to me that trying to duplicate a book that sold almost twice as many copies as their best book would be something worth doing.

 

And note something else about the books selling better or about the same as JLA - except for Green Lantern, they are all books that weren't "new" when this supposed conversation took place. Even if you want to call many of the title that were a couple years old as "new", there's nothing that says Goodman was only told about JLA, just that he centered in on that title as something to copy.

 

As for why he might have picked that title, Stan, in his telling of the creation of FF, says that Goodman's expectations were much closer to a direct copy of JLA than what happened, that Goodman wanted to revive some of their old characters like Captain America, Sub-mariner, and the like. Stan has said he didn't want to do that, which was part of how the FF came to be as it was, most likely due to the Kirby factor.

 

None of this is to say this proves that the story is true, but I don't think it disproves it, either. We look at the same data, and see different things.

 

And just for the record, I don't just accept Stan's story, certainly not in whole, but I've not seen anything to disprove it in any way.

[BarryAllen]

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

 

It's called "EM-PHA-SIS". and no, no headache here. The headache is trying to reason with the willfully unreasoning.

 

:shrug:

 

Well I think you are arbitrary and capricious.

 

And...one more time....what do you base this estimation on?

 

You could have just said "I refuse to listen to or use reason." So complicated even in your short responses.

 

See, you are offended by something as arbitrary as sentence structure. You don't like that someone writes "in a certain way", because you deem that manner to be "elitist", "snobbish", etc.

 

Could there be a sillier, more capricious reason to dislike what someone writes?

 

No, there couldn't. And I have no doubt you object to "could there be", as well.

 

Because, you're an elitist, who thinks everyone should express themselves the way YOU imagine is proper.

 

Is that not so...?

 

 

I wasn't offended, just pointing out that you are unnecessarily complicated with your responses. In general my belief is that you structure your statements very purposefully in an effort to lend support to your otherwise completely shallow and baseless arguments.

 

Specifically I am stating that you employ:

Argument By Prestigious Jargon: using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.

- Example: Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics.

 

Sales figures can be facts,

 

"Can be"?

 

Do you know of any situation in which sales figures AREN'T facts, but rather, "interpretation"?

 

so let's assume every bit of data provided is accurate (no reason to believe they're not).

 

However, any good business person knows that the data itself proves nothing, it is the interpretation and presentation of the data that tells the story.

 

That's not always true.

 

Question: which sold more copies, Spiderman #1 or Walking Dead #1?

 

Data: Spiderman #1 sold in excess of 2 million total copies, Walking Dead sold an estimated 7-10,000 copies.

 

No "interpretation" needed.

 

All that has happened so far has been static presentation of data.

 

But, yet, before you said it was the "interpretation and presentation of what the data means" that is the problem, and now you're saying "all that has happened has been a static presentation of data"...?

 

Which is it?

 

What happens if you look at the trends of data over a linear time period? What percentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time? What does the growth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc.? How about if you compare that to Challengers? Did JLA take-off faster or slower than Challengers? Did JLA become a much faster and larger piece of the pie or did it come on slower? What about JLA's growth curve relative to all other titles at the time? These are all questions (and many many many more) you would have to examine in detail to have a full picture of what they "could" have seen at the time. Of course we will never know what they actually looked at, so the exercise itself would be futile as every view of the data would start with an assumption.

 

This is far, far, far beyond reasonable.

 

The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not beyond ALL doubt. Simply beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a GREATER burden of proof than in a civil case, which is simply "a preponderance of evidence."

 

The data shows....no interpretation needed (and, indeed, when pressed to give examples of such interpretation, you have steadfastly refused to do so)....that there wasn't enough time for sales info to lead anyone to say to Goodman, which was then passed along by Lee, that "JLA is selling better than most."

 

Not only was there not enough time, we also know that wasn't true.

 

No "interpretation" required.

 

We don't need to know the "the trends of data over a linear time period: or the "prcentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time" or the g"rowth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc." or any of the rest of the information that you mention, most of which is probably permanently lost to time.

 

None of that information is necessary to demonstrate that the quote upon which you have built your entire argument more than likely never happened.

 

Ignoring the quote itself, the going provided argument is that the "Marvel group" were looking at data a certain way and because of the way the data is presented: JLA couldn't have influenced FF. However, the way the data is being presented is an assumption in of itself.

 

The way the "data is being presented is an assumption in of (sic) itself"...?

 

Do you deny that JLA #1 went on sale around August of 1960?

 

Do you deny that the sales figures for the first year of JLA averaged 335,000 copies sold?

 

Do you deny that sales results for the first few issues of JLA were all, at best, that would have been available at the time of the creation of FF #1?

 

These are recorded facts of history, and you keep calling them assumptions.

 

There is no way to know how the data was being viewed or if they were even looking at data at all. For all we know they could have been working from hearsay on the success of the book and a few newsstands they walked by themselves. There is no way to really know.

 

That's right. You've got it!

 

There is NO WAY TO REALLY KNOW...

 

Which means...it is more likely than not that Goodman never made such a statement.

 

You've got it!

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

 

It's called "EM-PHA-SIS". and no, no headache here. The headache is trying to reason with the willfully unreasoning.

 

:shrug:

 

Well I think you are arbitrary and capricious.

 

And...one more time....what do you base this estimation on?

 

You could have just said "I refuse to listen to or use reason." So complicated even in your short responses.

 

See, you are offended by something as arbitrary as sentence structure. You don't like that someone writes "in a certain way", because you deem that manner to be "elitist", "snobbish", etc.

 

Could there be a sillier, more capricious reason to dislike what someone writes?

 

No, there couldn't. And I have no doubt you object to "could there be", as well.

 

Because, you're an elitist, who thinks everyone should express themselves the way YOU imagine is proper.

 

Is that not so...?

 

 

I wasn't offended, just pointing out that you are unnecessarily complicated with your responses. In general my belief is that you structure your statements very purposefully in an effort to lend support to your otherwise completely shallow and baseless arguments.

 

Your accusations of "completely shallow and baseless arguments" ring resoundingly hollow when considering this thread alone.

 

You cannot argue the merits, so you complain about the sentence structure and grammar.

 

Is there any more classic example of someone so incapable of defending his points that he has to resort to ad hominem...?

 

It's really quite textbook.

 

Specifically I am stating that you employ:

Argument By Prestigious Jargon: using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.

- Example: Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?

 

You have quoted this now three separate times, and you still haven't used it correctly. You don't understand what it means, and believe it applies simply to vocabulary and sentence structure.

 

It does not.

 

I find it quite amusing that you are offended because someone has a vocabulary and uses it.

 

Do you have any specific examples of this, or will you, as always, refuse to answer specifically, and instead stick to your vague accusations?

 

Oh, why am I even bothering to ask...

 

[BarryAllen]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics.

 

Sales figures can be facts,

 

"Can be"?

 

Do you know of any situation in which sales figures AREN'T facts, but rather, "interpretation"?

 

so let's assume every bit of data provided is accurate (no reason to believe they're not).

 

However, any good business person knows that the data itself proves nothing, it is the interpretation and presentation of the data that tells the story.

 

That's not always true.

 

Question: which sold more copies, Spiderman #1 or Walking Dead #1?

 

Data: Spiderman #1 sold in excess of 2 million total copies, Walking Dead sold an estimated 7-10,000 copies.

 

No "interpretation" needed.

 

All that has happened so far has been static presentation of data.

 

But, yet, before you said it was the "interpretation and presentation of what the data means" that is the problem, and now you're saying "all that has happened has been a static presentation of data"...?

 

Which is it?

 

What happens if you look at the trends of data over a linear time period? What percentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time? What does the growth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc.? How about if you compare that to Challengers? Did JLA take-off faster or slower than Challengers? Did JLA become a much faster and larger piece of the pie or did it come on slower? What about JLA's growth curve relative to all other titles at the time? These are all questions (and many many many more) you would have to examine in detail to have a full picture of what they "could" have seen at the time. Of course we will never know what they actually looked at, so the exercise itself would be futile as every view of the data would start with an assumption.

 

This is far, far, far beyond reasonable.

 

The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not beyond ALL doubt. Simply beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a GREATER burden of proof than in a civil case, which is simply "a preponderance of evidence."

 

The data shows....no interpretation needed (and, indeed, when pressed to give examples of such interpretation, you have steadfastly refused to do so)....that there wasn't enough time for sales info to lead anyone to say to Goodman, which was then passed along by Lee, that "JLA is selling better than most."

 

Not only was there not enough time, we also know that wasn't true.

 

No "interpretation" required.

 

We don't need to know the "the trends of data over a linear time period: or the "prcentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time" or the g"rowth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc." or any of the rest of the information that you mention, most of which is probably permanently lost to time.

 

None of that information is necessary to demonstrate that the quote upon which you have built your entire argument more than likely never happened.

 

Ignoring the quote itself, the going provided argument is that the "Marvel group" were looking at data a certain way and because of the way the data is presented: JLA couldn't have influenced FF. However, the way the data is being presented is an assumption in of itself.

 

The way the "data is being presented is an assumption in of (sic) itself"...?

 

Do you deny that JLA #1 went on sale around August of 1960?

 

Do you deny that the sales figures for the first year of JLA averaged 335,000 copies sold?

 

Do you deny that sales results for the first few issues of JLA were all, at best, that would have been available at the time of the creation of FF #1?

 

These are recorded facts of history, and you keep calling them assumptions.

 

There is no way to know how the data was being viewed or if they were even looking at data at all. For all we know they could have been working from hearsay on the success of the book and a few newsstands they walked by themselves. There is no way to really know.

 

That's right. You've got it!

 

There is NO WAY TO REALLY KNOW...

 

Which means...it is more likely than not that Goodman never made such a statement.

 

You've got it!

 

 

Most of what you said is simply nonsense.

 

Who are you arguing with or for?

 

You continue to just keep coming with what you believe are solid arguments but it is just nonsense. You refuse to accept anything I say and continue to create conjecture for the sake of it. You are arguing to argue.

 

It is a little certifiable.

[BarryAllen]

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

 

It's called "EM-PHA-SIS". and no, no headache here. The headache is trying to reason with the willfully unreasoning.

 

:shrug:

 

Well I think you are arbitrary and capricious.

 

And...one more time....what do you base this estimation on?

 

You could have just said "I refuse to listen to or use reason." So complicated even in your short responses.

 

See, you are offended by something as arbitrary as sentence structure. You don't like that someone writes "in a certain way", because you deem that manner to be "elitist", "snobbish", etc.

 

Could there be a sillier, more capricious reason to dislike what someone writes?

 

No, there couldn't. And I have no doubt you object to "could there be", as well.

 

Because, you're an elitist, who thinks everyone should express themselves the way YOU imagine is proper.

 

Is that not so...?

 

 

I wasn't offended, just pointing out that you are unnecessarily complicated with your responses. In general my belief is that you structure your statements very purposefully in an effort to lend support to your otherwise completely shallow and baseless arguments.

 

Your accusations of "completely shallow and baseless arguments" ring resoundingly hollow when considering this thread alone.

 

You cannot argue the merits, so you complain about the sentence structure and grammar.

 

Is there any more classic example of someone incapable of defending his points that he has to resort to ad hominem...?

 

It's really quite textbook.

 

Specifically I am stating that you employ:

Argument By Prestigious Jargon: using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert.

- Example: Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?

 

You have quoted this now three separate times, and you still haven't used it correctly. You don't understand what it means, and believe it applies simply to vocabulary and sentence structure.

 

It does not.

 

I find it quite amusing that you are offended because someone has a vocabulary and uses it.

 

Do you have any specific examples of this, or will you, as always, refuse to answer specifically, and instead stick to your vague accusations?

 

Oh, why am I even bothering to ask...

 

 

So

many

words.

 

Seriously, so many words and so little meaning.

[RockMyAmadeus]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics. And while Evanier did not call Lee a liar, his statement does take Lee's "memory" that much further away from being a piece of solid and eyewitness testimony (which it never was to begin with).

 

You and I differ on the meaning of Evanier's full statement on the matter, but that's fine.

 

As for the "evidence from the timeline and sales figures", I don't disregard them, I just don't find them persuasive. On the timeline, it is my understanding that even RMA concedes that there is enough time for someone in-the-know to decide how well a book is selling,

 

Based on three issues...? You can make this conclusion based on three issues...? And then that hypothetical "person in the know" is going to say "hey, this new title, JLA, is selling about on par with some of our other titles, like Flash, Blackhawk, and others...it's only three issues in, but those are pretty good"...and then Goodman is going to, in turn, tell Stan "Hey, there's a new title that's got fairly moderate sales at National...it's only three issues in, but hey, it looks good so far...we should do a superhero team!"...?

 

Who decides how well a book is selling based on three issues...?

 

And who then goes and tells an unrelated party about it, when we discover later that those sales were good, but not stellar?

 

What motive does this unnamed "in the know" person have to go tell a competitor, "hey, by the way...we're three issues in to this new series, and sales are decent" which would then inspire that person to go tell his employee "hey, there's this book that has moderate sales! Let's copy that!"

 

You think that is reasonable?

 

so the only question there is whether Goodman could have gotten that information. I believe that to be likely, you perhaps don't, which is also fine.

 

In regards to the sales figures, let's look at those. The argument seems to be JLA wasn't really a big seller, so why would anyone single out that book to tell Goodman about, or why would Goodman want to copy that idea? As has been pointed out, in 1961 it was #13 in sales, well below the Superman and Batman titles, and on a par with other DC titles like Detective, Flash, Blackhawk, and Green Lantern. And what was Marvel's top seller at the time? Tales to Astonish, ranked down at #40, with average paid circulation barely more than half of JLA. It would seem likely to me that trying to duplicate a book that sold almost twice as many copies as their best book would be something worth doing.

 

Except, why pick JLA?

 

Why not pick Flash, or Blackhawk, or Betty & Veronica, or Challengers of the Unknown, or any of the Superman titles?

 

Lois Lane, in opposition, was clearly a super hit.

 

Wouldn't it seem more plausible for Goodman to say "you know, we need more women readers. We should try what National is doing, and launch a new superhero girlfriend title."

 

Based on your line of reasoning, it would be much more plausible.

 

And note something else about the books selling better or about the same as JLA - except for Green Lantern, they are all books that weren't "new" when this supposed conversation took place. Even if you want to call many of the title that were a couple years old as "new", there's nothing that says Goodman was only told about JLA, just that he centered in on that title as something to copy.

 

Which...again...doesn't make any sense. Why "center" on JLA, which was brand new, and not Flash, Challengers, Lois Lane, or other "relatively new" books?

 

"New" meant "untested." It meant "not sure." It meant "well, this might be a bigger risk than we thought...what other information do you have?"

 

This would especially be true of the industry people who had just come out of the 50's, an era when many new projects fizzled and died within a year or two.

 

As for why he might have picked that title, Stan, in his telling of the creation of FF, says that Goodman's expectations were much closer to a direct copy of JLA than what happened, that Goodman wanted to revive some of their old characters like Captain America, Sub-mariner, and the like. Stan has said he didn't want to do that, which was part of how the FF came to be as it was, most likely due to the Kirby factor.

 

Except that this assumption again rests on the premise that what Stan has said Martin said is true, which is the very point of contention.

 

None of this is to say this proves that the story is true, but I don't think it disproves it, either. We look at the same data, and see different things.

 

And just for the record, I don't just accept Stan's story, certainly not in whole, but I've not seen anything to disprove it in any way.

 

Well...I guess we're making progress....you guys and your "I've not seen anything to disprove it in any way"...I don't know what thread you're reading.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

So

many

words.

 

Seriously, so many words and so little meaning.

 

So

much

contempt.

 

Seriously, so much contempt and so little respect.

[BarryAllen]

 

So

many

words.

 

Seriously, so many words and so little meaning.

 

So

much

contempt.

 

Seriously, so much contempt and so little respect.

 

 

Definitely no respect. You don't deserve any of it with the way you come at people. Maybe I don't either, but you certainly don't. Contempt, eh - not really.

 

You just keep coming.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Most of what you said is simply nonsense.

 

Because you say it, it must be true. I mean, you don't provide any evidence, support, foundation, or reasoning behind anything you say...you know, all of the normal things which a person does when trying to make a legitimate case....no, you just say things, and expect everyone to take your word for it, because...you say it.

 

That's the most unreasoning and unreasonable position of all.

 

You have no interest in reason, you can't support anything you say...so you just insult and accuse.

 

Who are you arguing with or for?

 

You continue to just keep coming with what you believe are solid arguments but it is just nonsense. You refuse to accept anything I say and continue to create conjecture for the sake of it. You are arguing to argue.

 

Because you say it, it must be true.

 

You have no substance, you cannot argue the merit, so you attack the person.

 

That is classic ad hominem.

 

It is a little certifiable.

 

By the way...are you ever going to provide any specific examples to support the multiple accusations you've made in this thread?

 

I've asked you to support your accusations with evidence, and you've utterly refused.

 

Is it because you know you don't have any? If so, just say that, retract the accusations, and let's move on already.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

So

many

words.

 

Seriously, so many words and so little meaning.

 

So

much

contempt.

 

Seriously, so much contempt and so little respect.

 

 

Definitely no respect. You don't deserve any of it with the way you come at people. Maybe I don't either, but you certainly don't. Contempt, eh - not really.

 

You just keep coming.

 

 

Oh, no, I wasn't talking about respect for me.

 

That's a given.

 

I was talking about respect for yourself.

 

I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy of saying "You just keep coming" when you, yourself, keep coming...right?

 

 

PS. "The way you come at people." That's your arrogance, in thinking that people see me the way you see me. Don't worry...R-Foy will save you from that mean ol' RMA.

[BarryAllen]

Most of what you said is simply nonsense.

 

Because you say it, it must be true. I mean, you don't provide any evidence, support, foundation, or reasoning behind anything you say...you know, all of the normal things which a person does when trying to make a legitimate case....no, you just say things, and expect everyone to take your word for it, because...you say it.

 

That's the most unreasoning and unreasonable position of all.

 

You have no interest in reason, you can't support anything you say...so you just insult and accuse.

 

Who are you arguing with or for?

 

You continue to just keep coming with what you believe are solid arguments but it is just nonsense. You refuse to accept anything I say and continue to create conjecture for the sake of it. You are arguing to argue.

 

Because you say it, it must be true.

 

You have no substance, you cannot argue the merit, so you attack the person.

 

That is classic ad hominem.

 

It is a little certifiable.

 

By the way...are you ever going to provide any specific examples to support the multiple accusations you've made in this thread?

 

I've asked you to support your accusations with evidence, and you've utterly refused.

 

Is it because you know you don't have any? If so, just say that, retract the accusations, and let's move on already.

 

Not sure why I have to prove anything.

 

You custom create evidence on the spot and then argue to the death it is true. However it isn't, it is your opinion.

 

I don't need to do anything you say or provide evidence to back up what is say - it's all there in this thread.

 

You on the other hand have a constant need to provide "evidence" and examples of why you are right. You will go to any length to manufacture reality to win an argument.

 

You just keep coming.

 

With

So

Many

Words.

[BarryAllen]

 

So

many

words.

 

Seriously, so many words and so little meaning.

 

So

much

contempt.

 

Seriously, so much contempt and so little respect.

 

 

Definitely no respect. You don't deserve any of it with the way you come at people. Maybe I don't either, but you certainly don't. Contempt, eh - not really.

 

You just keep coming.

 

 

Oh, no, I wasn't talking about respect for me.

 

That's a given.

 

I was talking about respect for yourself.

 

I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy of saying "You just keep coming" when you, yourself, keep coming...right?

 

 

PS. "The way you come at people." That's your arrogance, in thinking that people see me the way you see me. Don't worry...R-Foy will save you from that mean ol' RMA.

 

The only person I am talking to is you.

 

More manufactured nonsense.

 

Why RMA, why are you still coming?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Not sure why I have to prove anything.

 

No, you're not, are you?

 

You have no problems making "shallow and baseless accusations", but see no need whatsoever to back those accusations up, do you?

 

You custom create evidence on the spot and then argue to the death it is true. However it isn't, it is your opinion.

 

Such as? Any examples. Any at all. Do you have ANY "custom created evidence" at all that you can point to...?

 

If not...do shut up already.

 

I don't need to do anything you say or provide evidence to back up what is say - it's all there in this thread.

 

Of course! "I don't have to prove anything I say! It's already all there! Go look for it yourself!"

 

The clarion cry of the fraud.

 

You on the other hand have a constant need to provide "evidence" and examples of why you are right.

 

No, I provide evidence that proves my arguments. That's what debate and discussion is about.

 

No less than three times you have made provocative comments in this thread, in an attempt to stir the pot, and yet you complain that other people "have a constant need"...?

 

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

 

You will go to any length to manufacture reality to win an argument.

 

Such as....?

 

Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? Anything? Any specific examples that support your accusations?

 

You just keep coming.

 

As do you.

 

With

So

Many

Words.

 

Yes, as many words as it takes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Oh, no, I wasn't talking about respect for me.

 

That's a given.

 

I was talking about respect for yourself.

 

I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy of saying "You just keep coming" when you, yourself, keep coming...right?

 

 

PS. "The way you come at people." That's your arrogance, in thinking that people see me the way you see me. Don't worry...R-Foy will save you from that mean ol' RMA.

 

The only person I am talking to is you.

 

That reply doesn't even make sense.

 

More manufactured nonsense.

 

Neither does that one.

 

Why RMA, why are you still coming?

 

I'm guessing it's because you keep coming at me...

 

I could be wrong.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Alright, R-Foy, we have had our playground fun, but really...the people of the board really don't want to deal with all of this silly nonsense.

 

You will, again, have the last word.

 

Hopefully, we can get back to the discussion at some point.

 

Back to work for me.

 

[BarryAllen]

Alright, R-Foy, we have had our playground fun, but really...the people of the board really don't want to deal with all of this silly nonsense.

 

You will, again, have the last word.

 

Hopefully, we can get back to the discussion at some point.

 

Back to work for me.

 

 

See, more positioning that you are here to help everyone. To "educucate or inform." This is you. No one asked for this yet you continue to push.

 

 

[BarryAllen]

 

Oh, no, I wasn't talking about respect for me.

 

That's a given.

 

I was talking about respect for yourself.

 

I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy of saying "You just keep coming" when you, yourself, keep coming...right?

 

 

PS. "The way you come at people." That's your arrogance, in thinking that people see me the way you see me. Don't worry...R-Foy will save you from that mean ol' RMA.

 

The only person I am talking to is you.

 

That reply doesn't even make sense.

 

More manufactured nonsense.

 

Neither does that one.

 

Why RMA, why are you still coming?

 

I'm guessing it's because you keep coming at me...

 

I could be wrong.

 

How will it end I wonder?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Alright, R-Foy, we have had our playground fun, but really...the people of the board really don't want to deal with all of this silly nonsense.

 

You will, again, have the last word.

 

Hopefully, we can get back to the discussion at some point.

 

Back to work for me.

 

 

See, more positioning that you are here to help everyone. To "educucate or inform." This is you. No one asked for this yet you continue to push.

 

 

 

[BarryAllen]

Alright, R-Foy, we have had our playground fun, but really...the people of the board really don't want to deal with all of this silly nonsense.

 

You will, again, have the last word.

 

Hopefully, we can get back to the discussion at some point.

 

Back to work for me.

 

 

See, more positioning that you are here to help everyone. To "educucate or inform." This is you. No one asked for this yet you continue to push.