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

[RockMyAmadeus]

I am going to bed, it's late and I have to work tomorrow.

 

I am really not looking to get deep into this again with anyone. I have my beef with RMA and we can leave it at that.

 

Your "beef" is going to get you a vacation from the boards if you keep it up.

 

Your arrogant presumption, that you have the right and responsibility to harass other people about they way they "talk" is far, far beyond the bounds of the board rules.

 

If you keep it up....and I am giving you fair warning, now....you will have to deal with moderation. No one....NO ONE...has the right to continually harass other members of this board because they have decided they "don't like how they talk to people."

 

It is your choice. Choose wisely.

 

Lazyboy: I have no idea what your motivation is but I am really not interested in rehashing any of this with someone else. If it's because you disagree, then great we can agree to disagree. If it is because you are pals with RMA, great I wish you a long friendship. If it is because you don't like me, I accept that. Whatever it is, I wish you no ill will.

 

Have a good night.

 

His motivation is that your comments are so void of reason and logic, he is astonished that someone exists that can be so incredibly irrational and illogical, yet so arrogant in insisting that what he is saying is right.

 

He can correct me if I've gotten any of that wrong.

 

I suspect I haven't.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And...if anyone reading this thinks I have been too hard on rfoiii, just remember that he said this:

 

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

 

Was SPECULATION.

 

We don't know why Lois Lane got her own title, according to rfoiii. We can only speculate. We don't know that it was because sales for her two Showcase tryout issues were very good...we don't know, so it's all just speculation and opinion. And remember....we don't KNOW that there was an 8 month interval between Showcase #9 and Lois Lane #1. That is speculation...so says rfoiii.

 

And even the bits that I ACKNOWLEDGE is speculation ("the response must have been overwhelming") is STILL dismissed as...you guessed it...speculation.

 

Yes, he really said that.

 

And this:

 

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

 

Was ALSO SPECULATION.

 

After all, we don't have any idea when Jack Kirby actually created Challengers of the Unknown #1, according to rfoii. We don't even know if it was created before it was published, because it's all just speculation.

 

Never mind that we know that for a book to be published, it had to have been created, and never mind that Jack Kirby was a journeyman creator, capable of handling a great deal of work, and never mind that the book would have been created just prior to being printed since that's how comics publishing has worked since the beginning of comics.

 

No, it's SPECULATION, you see, mere OPINION, that Jack Kirby created Challengers #1 in the month or so before it was published.

 

And this:

 

"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. "

 

Is all just speculation, even though it is a matter of public record that Second Class Postage considerations influenced publication decisions (See: Encyclopedia of Comic Books & Graphic Novels, Vol 2, page 553' "In line with Gaines' practice of saving money, he changed the titles of some of his existing comics, but retained the numbering, allowing him to avoid second class postage charges" - edited by M. Keith Booker)

 

Remember, that's just speculation, not fact.

 

And this:

 

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

 

Remember this is SPECULATION, according to rfoiii. We don't know when DC got finalized sales results for JLA #3, according to rfoii. It could have been in 1972 or 1927. We just don't know.

 

Except we do know; we know EXACTLY when they got it, because THAT'S HOW THE NEWSSTAND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WORKED.

 

You GOT the books....you SOLD the books....you TOOK THE BOOKS OFF SALE when their COVER DATE came....and then you either STRIPPED the books and sent the covers, or cover fragments, back to your distributor, (as was the practice in 1961), or you signed an affidavit, which said you destroyed the books, and then the DISTRIBUTOR either forwarded the covers/cover fragments to DC, or they certified the receipt of such from the newsstands in their region. This process took about a month, and by the time it was done, DC had FINALIZED sales information.

 

Since we KNOW that the cover date (thus, the removal date) for JLA #3 is Mar, 1961, and we KNOW that that's when the book would have been taken OFF SALE, and we KNOW that the process to gather sales data took about a month or so, then we KNOW, NOT SPECULATE, that sales numbers for that issue were FINALIZED in Apr-May 1961.

 

This is NOT SPECULATION.

 

Madness.

 

We have wandered down the path of fantasyland, LSD trips, and peyote nightmares. We no longer deal in reality.

 

And he's made posts full of these types of comments.

 

So, lest anyone think I am being unfair, please carefully consider the above, and decide for yourselves if I have been unfair in my analysis of rfoiii.

 

 

There needs to be so many words, "rfoiii", because that's what is required to effectively demonstrate that you have not a clue what you're talking about, which hasn't prevented, or even slowed, you from posting in the slightest.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why am I arguing with madmen...?

 

I am clearly a madman, for arguing with madmen.

 

Sigh.

 

[BarryAllen]

I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. Then I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. The detail doesn't line up in many cases about a number of things across both sets of information. Who is right?

 

My consistent point (beyond my obvious antics) is that there is a story being told on this site is using a bit of data and a ton of "sales license." Sure, one could argue they are reasonable conclusions based on the data they see, their personal knowledge of comic production from the 1960's ( ) and other mitigating factors. However, I maintain that there are facts and there is everything else. I merely question that "everything else" with the same skepticism that other's are questioning Stan Lee's recollection of events...

 

So I read these articles and I read RMA's posts. Not all the details come into alignment and I question the reality that was created to tell the story he wanted to tell. Sure some it does align, but some of it doesn't - so I question the validity of the story as a whole because it is dependent on the creation of a timeline that is built upon a number of assumptions. To be clear, I don't have the argumentation skills or the time RMA does, but that doesn't mean he is right and I (or anyone else) am/is wrong.

 

Feel free to read and dismiss, read and accept, or whatever. Clearly to some it is an open an shut case because a compelling argument was made. I see it differently, I see a fanatic who is so concerned with being right he will go to any length to create and support a story and argue until death - even continuing past the point of reason when his opponent is clearly resorting to childish antics because he accepted long ago that RMA does not relent on anything for anyone (maybe in part, but never in full).

 

To Oak's point, this is a trivial topic.

 

 

link for fun

 

fun link

 

link of fun for everyone (because anyone can "edit" it)

 

fun link I am sure everyone has read

 

Have a great day everyone - I am off to work!

[oakman29]

Those articles were great reads.

[Lazyboy]

I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. Then I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. The detail doesn't line up in many cases about a number of things across both sets of information. Who is right?

 

My consistent point (beyond my obvious antics) is that there is a story being told on this site is using a bit of data and a ton of "sales license." Sure, one could argue they are reasonable conclusions based on the data they see, their personal knowledge of comic production from the 1960's ( ) and other mitigating factors. However, I maintain that there are facts and there is everything else. I merely question that "everything else" with the same skepticism that other's are questioning Stan Lee's recollection of events...

 

So I read these articles and I read RMA's posts. Not all the details come into alignment and I question the reality that was created to tell the story he wanted to tell. Sure some it does align, but some of it doesn't - so I question the validity of the story as a whole because it is dependent on the creation of a timeline that is built upon a number of assumptions. To be clear, I don't have the argumentation skills or the time RMA does, but that doesn't mean he is right and I (or anyone else) am/is wrong.

 

Feel free to read and dismiss, read and accept, or whatever. Clearly to some it is an open an shut case because a compelling argument was made. I see it differently, I see a fanatic who is so concerned with being right he will go to any length to create and support a story and argue until death - even continuing past the point of reason when his opponent is clearly resorting to childish antics because he accepted long ago that RMA does not relent on anything for anyone (maybe in part, but never in full).

 

To Oak's point, this is a trivial topic.

 

 

link for fun

 

fun link

 

link of fun for everyone (because anyone can "edit" it)

 

fun link I am sure everyone has read

 

Have a great day everyone - I am off to work!

Link 1: I'm not sure what relevance this has at all. Are you trying to show that people who write about comics history can be wrong (as seen in the corrections in the comments)?

 

Link 2: A very loose, casual history full of small (and larger) inaccuracies

 

Link 3: wikipedia

 

Link 4: "After about 20 years on the job, I said to my wife, "I don't think I'm getting anywhere. I think I'd like to quit." She gave me the best piece of advice in the world. She said, "Why not write one book the way you'd like to, instead of the way Martin wants you to? Get it out of your system. The worst thing that will happen is he'll fire you -- but you want to quit anyway." At the time, DC Comics had a book called The Justice League, about a group of superheroes, that was selling very well. So in 1961 we did The Fantastic Four. I tried to make the characters different in the sense that they had real emotions and problems. And it caught on. After that, Martin asked me to come up with some other superheroes." - Stan Lee

"All of the characters at Marvel were my ideas" - Stan Lee

 

Stan continues to contradict himself as he has soooo many times, but at least he's still trying to minimize Kirby, although this time directly in favour of Stan Lee rather than Marvel.

[Lazyboy]

Then why do you accept things like "Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands." to be fact when the cover date on the comic is February?

 

If you don't know anything about history, please don't argue about historical events.

 

Come on.

 

You know very well that my point of view on this subject isn't inaccurate. You can believe RMA's version, but it is still his version.

 

You are just looking for me to make a mistake to dismiss everything I said versus accepting the argument as a whole.

 

Forgetting to fact check a few of the data points doesn't change the reality that much of what he wrote there is his interpretation. I don't have the kind of time to filter through the thousands of lines of details he throws up in every argument. However, you don't need a history degree to see that he is clearly taking a position and interpreting events to make an argument. This is not rocket science and irrefutable.

 

I really don't want to argue this with another person, why do you care?

 

No, I know your point of view on this subject isn't accurate, at least not completely.

 

But you just missed, and thereby proved, my point. Anybody who isn't completely ignorant of history knows that cover dates are months behind on-sale dates and it's completely reasonable to say that Showcase 6 hit the stands in Sept-Oct 1956. Those people also know other general things about timing in the industry.

 

Your whole argument is based on one unsupportable piece of hearsay from a source who has repeatedly demonstrated a talent for misremembering things and contradicting himself.

[BarryAllen]

Then why do you accept things like "Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands." to be fact when the cover date on the comic is February?

 

If you don't know anything about history, please don't argue about historical events.

 

Come on.

 

You know very well that my point of view on this subject isn't inaccurate. You can believe RMA's version, but it is still his version.

 

You are just looking for me to make a mistake to dismiss everything I said versus accepting the argument as a whole.

 

Forgetting to fact check a few of the data points doesn't change the reality that much of what he wrote there is his interpretation. I don't have the kind of time to filter through the thousands of lines of details he throws up in every argument. However, you don't need a history degree to see that he is clearly taking a position and interpreting events to make an argument. This is not rocket science and irrefutable.

 

I really don't want to argue this with another person, why do you care?

 

No, I know your point of view on this subject isn't accurate, at least not completely.

 

But you just missed, and thereby proved, my point. Anybody who isn't completely ignorant of history knows that cover dates are months behind on-sale dates and it's completely reasonable to say that Showcase 6 hit the stands in Sept-Oct 1956. Those people also know other general things about timing in the industry.

 

Your whole argument is based on one unsupportable piece of hearsay from a source who has repeatedly demonstrated a talent for misremembering things and contradicting himself.

 

Versus your argument that people can quote historic bullet points about publishing dates and sales dates are obviously relevant sources of data on anything in comic history? That is quite an assumption in of itself.

 

My argument wasn't based on Stan Lee's statement, but rather that I believe him over the constructed timeline created upon a series of assumptions.

 

However, I find it funny that you can call the co-creator of the book and someone who is certainly an expert on comics and comic history (he did live it after all) into question but RMA and his story are unassailable?

 

[BarryAllen]

I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. Then I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. The detail doesn't line up in many cases about a number of things across both sets of information. Who is right?

 

My consistent point (beyond my obvious antics) is that there is a story being told on this site is using a bit of data and a ton of "sales license." Sure, one could argue they are reasonable conclusions based on the data they see, their personal knowledge of comic production from the 1960's ( ) and other mitigating factors. However, I maintain that there are facts and there is everything else. I merely question that "everything else" with the same skepticism that other's are questioning Stan Lee's recollection of events...

 

So I read these articles and I read RMA's posts. Not all the details come into alignment and I question the reality that was created to tell the story he wanted to tell. Sure some it does align, but some of it doesn't - so I question the validity of the story as a whole because it is dependent on the creation of a timeline that is built upon a number of assumptions. To be clear, I don't have the argumentation skills or the time RMA does, but that doesn't mean he is right and I (or anyone else) am/is wrong.

 

Feel free to read and dismiss, read and accept, or whatever. Clearly to some it is an open an shut case because a compelling argument was made. I see it differently, I see a fanatic who is so concerned with being right he will go to any length to create and support a story and argue until death - even continuing past the point of reason when his opponent is clearly resorting to childish antics because he accepted long ago that RMA does not relent on anything for anyone (maybe in part, but never in full).

 

To Oak's point, this is a trivial topic.

 

 

link for fun

 

fun link

 

link of fun for everyone (because anyone can "edit" it)

 

fun link I am sure everyone has read

 

Have a great day everyone - I am off to work!

Link 1: I'm not sure what relevance this has at all. Are you trying to show that people who write about comics history can be wrong (as seen in the corrections in the comments)?

 

Link 2: A very loose, casual history full of small (and larger) inaccuracies

 

Link 3: wikipedia

 

Link 4: "After about 20 years on the job, I said to my wife, "I don't think I'm getting anywhere. I think I'd like to quit." She gave me the best piece of advice in the world. She said, "Why not write one book the way you'd like to, instead of the way Martin wants you to? Get it out of your system. The worst thing that will happen is he'll fire you -- but you want to quit anyway." At the time, DC Comics had a book called The Justice League, about a group of superheroes, that was selling very well. So in 1961 we did The Fantastic Four. I tried to make the characters different in the sense that they had real emotions and problems. And it caught on. After that, Martin asked me to come up with some other superheroes." - Stan Lee

"All of the characters at Marvel were my ideas" - Stan Lee

 

Stan continues to contradict himself as he has soooo many times, but at least he's still trying to minimize Kirby, although this time directly in favour of Stan Lee rather than Marvel.

 

Ok, if that is how you choose to view it - that is your choice.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. Then I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. The detail doesn't line up in many cases about a number of things across both sets of information. Who is right?

 

My consistent point (beyond my obvious antics) is that there is a story being told on this site is using a bit of data and a ton of "sales license." Sure, one could argue they are reasonable conclusions based on the data they see, their personal knowledge of comic production from the 1960's ( ) and other mitigating factors. However, I maintain that there are facts and there is everything else. I merely question that "everything else" with the same skepticism that other's are questioning Stan Lee's recollection of events...

 

So I read these articles and I read RMA's posts. Not all the details come into alignment and I question the reality that was created to tell the story he wanted to tell. Sure some it does align, but some of it doesn't - so I question the validity of the story as a whole because it is dependent on the creation of a timeline that is built upon a number of assumptions. To be clear, I don't have the argumentation skills or the time RMA does, but that doesn't mean he is right and I (or anyone else) am/is wrong.

 

Feel free to read and dismiss, read and accept, or whatever. Clearly to some it is an open an shut case because a compelling argument was made. I see it differently, I see a fanatic who is so concerned with being right he will go to any length to create and support a story and argue until death - even continuing past the point of reason when his opponent is clearly resorting to childish antics because he accepted long ago that RMA does not relent on anything for anyone (maybe in part, but never in full).

 

To Oak's point, this is a trivial topic.

 

 

link for fun

 

fun link

 

link of fun for everyone (because anyone can "edit" it)

 

fun link I am sure everyone has read

 

Have a great day everyone - I am off to work!

Link 1: I'm not sure what relevance this has at all. Are you trying to show that people who write about comics history can be wrong (as seen in the corrections in the comments)?

 

Link 2: A very loose, casual history full of small (and larger) inaccuracies

 

Link 3: wikipedia

 

Link 4: "After about 20 years on the job, I said to my wife, "I don't think I'm getting anywhere. I think I'd like to quit." She gave me the best piece of advice in the world. She said, "Why not write one book the way you'd like to, instead of the way Martin wants you to? Get it out of your system. The worst thing that will happen is he'll fire you -- but you want to quit anyway." At the time, DC Comics had a book called The Justice League, about a group of superheroes, that was selling very well. So in 1961 we did The Fantastic Four. I tried to make the characters different in the sense that they had real emotions and problems. And it caught on. After that, Martin asked me to come up with some other superheroes." - Stan Lee

"All of the characters at Marvel were my ideas" - Stan Lee

 

Stan continues to contradict himself as he has soooo many times, but at least he's still trying to minimize Kirby, although this time directly in favour of Stan Lee rather than Marvel.

 

Ok, if that is how you choose to view it - that is your choice.

 

That's right...because that's what the reasonable, rational response that carefully weighs and considers the evidence concludes.

 

There is reasonable disagreement, and there is unreasonable disagreement. Applying the rules of reason and logic will lead one in certain, specific directions. You reject those rules, for reasons of your own, and rail against anyone who would attempt to get you to see the flaws and errors in your logic.

 

That's what it boils down to.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Then why do you accept things like "Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands." to be fact when the cover date on the comic is February?

 

If you don't know anything about history, please don't argue about historical events.

 

Come on.

 

You know very well that my point of view on this subject isn't inaccurate. You can believe RMA's version, but it is still his version.

 

You are just looking for me to make a mistake to dismiss everything I said versus accepting the argument as a whole.

 

Forgetting to fact check a few of the data points doesn't change the reality that much of what he wrote there is his interpretation. I don't have the kind of time to filter through the thousands of lines of details he throws up in every argument. However, you don't need a history degree to see that he is clearly taking a position and interpreting events to make an argument. This is not rocket science and irrefutable.

 

I really don't want to argue this with another person, why do you care?

 

No, I know your point of view on this subject isn't accurate, at least not completely.

 

But you just missed, and thereby proved, my point. Anybody who isn't completely ignorant of history knows that cover dates are months behind on-sale dates and it's completely reasonable to say that Showcase 6 hit the stands in Sept-Oct 1956. Those people also know other general things about timing in the industry.

 

Your whole argument is based on one unsupportable piece of hearsay from a source who has repeatedly demonstrated a talent for misremembering things and contradicting himself.

 

Yes. Hopefully, hearing it from other sources will give rfoiii pause to consider.

[BarryAllen]

I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. Then I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. The detail doesn't line up in many cases about a number of things across both sets of information. Who is right?

 

My consistent point (beyond my obvious antics) is that there is a story being told on this site is using a bit of data and a ton of "sales license." Sure, one could argue they are reasonable conclusions based on the data they see, their personal knowledge of comic production from the 1960's ( ) and other mitigating factors. However, I maintain that there are facts and there is everything else. I merely question that "everything else" with the same skepticism that other's are questioning Stan Lee's recollection of events...

 

So I read these articles and I read RMA's posts. Not all the details come into alignment and I question the reality that was created to tell the story he wanted to tell. Sure some it does align, but some of it doesn't - so I question the validity of the story as a whole because it is dependent on the creation of a timeline that is built upon a number of assumptions. To be clear, I don't have the argumentation skills or the time RMA does, but that doesn't mean he is right and I (or anyone else) am/is wrong.

 

Feel free to read and dismiss, read and accept, or whatever. Clearly to some it is an open an shut case because a compelling argument was made. I see it differently, I see a fanatic who is so concerned with being right he will go to any length to create and support a story and argue until death - even continuing past the point of reason when his opponent is clearly resorting to childish antics because he accepted long ago that RMA does not relent on anything for anyone (maybe in part, but never in full).

 

To Oak's point, this is a trivial topic.

 

 

link for fun

 

fun link

 

link of fun for everyone (because anyone can "edit" it)

 

fun link I am sure everyone has read

 

Have a great day everyone - I am off to work!

Link 1: I'm not sure what relevance this has at all. Are you trying to show that people who write about comics history can be wrong (as seen in the corrections in the comments)?

 

Link 2: A very loose, casual history full of small (and larger) inaccuracies

 

Link 3: wikipedia

 

Link 4: "After about 20 years on the job, I said to my wife, "I don't think I'm getting anywhere. I think I'd like to quit." She gave me the best piece of advice in the world. She said, "Why not write one book the way you'd like to, instead of the way Martin wants you to? Get it out of your system. The worst thing that will happen is he'll fire you -- but you want to quit anyway." At the time, DC Comics had a book called The Justice League, about a group of superheroes, that was selling very well. So in 1961 we did The Fantastic Four. I tried to make the characters different in the sense that they had real emotions and problems. And it caught on. After that, Martin asked me to come up with some other superheroes." - Stan Lee

"All of the characters at Marvel were my ideas" - Stan Lee

 

Stan continues to contradict himself as he has soooo many times, but at least he's still trying to minimize Kirby, although this time directly in favour of Stan Lee rather than Marvel.

 

Ok, if that is how you choose to view it - that is your choice.

 

That's right...because that's what the reasonable, rational response that carefully weighs and considers the evidence concludes.

 

There is reasonable disagreement, and there is unreasonable disagreement. Applying the rules of reason and logic will lead one in certain, specific directions. You reject those rules, for reasons of your own, and rail against anyone who would attempt to get you to see the flaws and errors in your logic.

 

That's what it boils down to.

 

You are so full of yourself that you can't contain it.

 

The "evidence" as you put it is completely up to interpretation. It is unfixed positioning and detail that can be crafted to tell a multitude of stories.

 

You pray upon the fact that no one has as much time as you do to devote to this endeavor, create incredibly detailed stories and the press for everyone to come up with an equally elaborate and necessarily detailed counter-point or you dismiss it. You do this in every argument you enter into on the boards. You are relentless with your well crafted nonsense and hide it behind a smoke screen of what you call "reason and logic." This is easily displayed through your condescending language that exemplifies a "teaching" mentality as you look down your nose at people, post overwhelming and unnecessarily complicated "walls of text" and absolutely refuse to accept any viewpoint other than your own manufactured one. You concede zero ground regardless of source and only dig deeper into your own self-righteous "holes of truth." If anyone is unreasonable, it is you.

 

All you have proven is that whatever else you have going on in the day is less important than winning the argument.

 

It is sad really.

[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,

 

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?

 

You almost make me wonder if you have real conversations with real people; the kind of conversations where people talk about things that are happening with them, talk about common interests both personal and professional, sometimes exaggerate about their accomplishments, poke gentle fun at their friend about some aspect of their lives, talk about how good (well?) - or bad - things are at work; you know, conversations. To answer your question, no, I don't think that is reasonable, since people don't really talk like that.

 

As for the rest, I've shared my opinion, and don't really have anything to add, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I won't offer you the last word, because I AM like you in one respect, there's always the possibility that you'd say something I just couldn't resist responding to.

 

This went a bit too far, and I apologize for that. I just couldn't believe that such a ridiculous characterization would be put forth as to how such a conversation must go.

 

A "bit"...?

 

Do you understand sarcasm?

 

I think maybe Lazyboy has hit the nail on the head: you may not be able to tell when people are being sarcastic to make a point.

 

If that is the case, then I shall have to remember to always be literal with you, or you will come to strange conclusions such as the one above, where you completely missed the sarcasm that illustrated the point....because those ridiculous conversations were ridiculous to illustrate the point.

 

As usual, you don't get the point, but that's okay.

[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?

 

You almost make me wonder if you have real conversations with real people; the kind of conversations where people talk about things that are happening with them, talk about common interests both personal and professional, sometimes exaggerate about their accomplishments, poke gentle fun at their friend about some aspect of their lives, talk about how good (well?) - or bad - things are at work; you know, conversations. To answer your question, no, I don't think that is reasonable, since people don't really talk like that.

 

As for the rest, I've shared my opinion, and don't really have anything to add, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I won't offer you the last word, because I AM like you in one respect, there's always the possibility that you'd say something I just couldn't resist responding to.

 

This went a bit too far, and I apologize for that. I just couldn't believe that such a ridiculous characterization would be put forth as to how such a conversation must go.

 

A "bit"...?

 

Do you understand sarcasm?

 

I think maybe Lazyboy has hit the nail on the head: you may not be able to tell when people are being sarcastic to make a point.

 

If that is the case, then I shall have to remember to always be literal with you, or you will come to strange conclusions such as the one above, where you completely missed the sarcasm that illustrated the point....because those ridiculous conversations were ridiculous to illustrate the point.

 

As usual, you don't get the point, but that's okay.

 

I understand that you believe that. Belief, however, doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. Then I read RMA's posts and then I read these articles. The detail doesn't line up in many cases about a number of things across both sets of information. Who is right?

 

My consistent point (beyond my obvious antics) is that there is a story being told on this site is using a bit of data and a ton of "sales license." Sure, one could argue they are reasonable conclusions based on the data they see, their personal knowledge of comic production from the 1960's ( ) and other mitigating factors. However, I maintain that there are facts and there is everything else. I merely question that "everything else" with the same skepticism that other's are questioning Stan Lee's recollection of events...

 

So I read these articles and I read RMA's posts. Not all the details come into alignment and I question the reality that was created to tell the story he wanted to tell. Sure some it does align, but some of it doesn't - so I question the validity of the story as a whole because it is dependent on the creation of a timeline that is built upon a number of assumptions. To be clear, I don't have the argumentation skills or the time RMA does, but that doesn't mean he is right and I (or anyone else) am/is wrong.

 

Feel free to read and dismiss, read and accept, or whatever. Clearly to some it is an open an shut case because a compelling argument was made. I see it differently, I see a fanatic who is so concerned with being right he will go to any length to create and support a story and argue until death - even continuing past the point of reason when his opponent is clearly resorting to childish antics because he accepted long ago that RMA does not relent on anything for anyone (maybe in part, but never in full).

 

To Oak's point, this is a trivial topic.

 

 

link for fun

 

fun link

 

link of fun for everyone (because anyone can "edit" it)

 

fun link I am sure everyone has read

 

Have a great day everyone - I am off to work!

Link 1: I'm not sure what relevance this has at all. Are you trying to show that people who write about comics history can be wrong (as seen in the corrections in the comments)?

 

Link 2: A very loose, casual history full of small (and larger) inaccuracies

 

Link 3: wikipedia

 

Link 4: "After about 20 years on the job, I said to my wife, "I don't think I'm getting anywhere. I think I'd like to quit." She gave me the best piece of advice in the world. She said, "Why not write one book the way you'd like to, instead of the way Martin wants you to? Get it out of your system. The worst thing that will happen is he'll fire you -- but you want to quit anyway." At the time, DC Comics had a book called The Justice League, about a group of superheroes, that was selling very well. So in 1961 we did The Fantastic Four. I tried to make the characters different in the sense that they had real emotions and problems. And it caught on. After that, Martin asked me to come up with some other superheroes." - Stan Lee

"All of the characters at Marvel were my ideas" - Stan Lee

 

Stan continues to contradict himself as he has soooo many times, but at least he's still trying to minimize Kirby, although this time directly in favour of Stan Lee rather than Marvel.

 

Ok, if that is how you choose to view it - that is your choice.

 

That's right...because that's what the reasonable, rational response that carefully weighs and considers the evidence concludes.

 

There is reasonable disagreement, and there is unreasonable disagreement. Applying the rules of reason and logic will lead one in certain, specific directions. You reject those rules, for reasons of your own, and rail against anyone who would attempt to get you to see the flaws and errors in your logic.

 

That's what it boils down to.

 

You are so full of yourself that you can't contain it.

 

The "evidence" as you put it is completely up to interpretation. It is unfixed positioning and detail that can be crafted to tell a multitude of stories.

 

You pray upon the fact that no one has as much time as you do to devote to this endeavor, create incredibly detailed stories and the press for everyone to come up with an equally elaborate and necessarily detailed counter-point or you dismiss it. You do this in every argument you enter into on the boards. You are relentless with your well crafted nonsense and hide it behind a smoke screen of what you call "reason and logic." This is easily displayed through your condescending language that exemplifies a "teaching" mentality as you look down your nose at people, post overwhelming and unnecessarily complicated "walls of text" and absolutely refuse to accept any viewpoint other than your own manufactured one. You concede zero ground regardless of source and only dig deeper into your own self-righteous "holes of truth." If anyone is unreasonable, it is you.

 

All you have proven is that whatever else you have going on in the day is less important than winning the argument.

 

It is sad really.

 

I have tried to reason with you at every turn, carefully laying out my arguments with evidence and logic. I have expressed shock and incredulity at your posts, true, but mostly it has been an attempt to reason with you, using facts and evidence.

 

If you feel the need to make it personal, insulting and dismissing me with every post, that's what you're going to do, and all the reason and logic in the world won't matter.

 

The case has been made, and it has been made well, regardless of where one ends up with their conclusions. I've tried (though probably failed) to keep it professional, reasonable, and logical. You've responded with endless insults.

 

That's really a genuine shame, because there's much good that can be achieved in these conversations.

[RockMyAmadeus]

To everyone else: my apologies for contributing to the unnecessary sideshow.

 

Hope springs eternal, and from my vantage point, if you approach an issue from as many different angles as possible, something might be discovered in a discussion that knocks that last small block of disagreement out. Sure, discussions can become passionate, but you never know when that one point that makes all the difference, like a diamond hidden amongst the coal, is discovered.

 

That's my motivation.

 

I recognize that that is a futile effort in some cases, even if I don't believe that is ever a permanent condition. I apologize for not having the willingness to acknowledge that. I apologize for giving in, in whatever degree, to the provocation.

 

I should know better. My apologies.

 

 

[BarryAllen]

To everyone else: my apologies for contributing to the unnecessary sideshow.

 

Hope springs eternal, and from my vantage point, if you approach an issue from as many different angles as possible, something might be discovered in a discussion that knocks that last small block of disagreement out. Sure, discussions can become passionate, but you never know when that one point that makes all the difference, like a diamond hidden amongst the coal, is discovered.

 

That's my motivation.

 

I recognize that that is a futile effort in some cases, even if I don't believe that is ever a permanent condition. I apologize for not having the willingness to acknowledge that. I apologize for giving in, in whatever degree, to the provocation.

 

I should know better. My apologies.

 

 

So sanctimonious even in your "apology" to the boards for your "part" in any of this. You couldn't just say "I''m sorry I wasted bandwidth on a pointless argument" or something to that extent. You have to create this elaborate display ordained with lofty language and only include the tiniest amount of veiled humility.

 

You are truly unbelievable.

[RockMyAmadeus]

To everyone else: my apologies for contributing to the unnecessary sideshow.

 

Hope springs eternal, and from my vantage point, if you approach an issue from as many different angles as possible, something might be discovered in a discussion that knocks that last small block of disagreement out. Sure, discussions can become passionate, but you never know when that one point that makes all the difference, like a diamond hidden amongst the coal, is discovered.

 

That's my motivation.

 

I recognize that that is a futile effort in some cases, even if I don't believe that is ever a permanent condition. I apologize for not having the willingness to acknowledge that. I apologize for giving in, in whatever degree, to the provocation.

 

I should know better. My apologies.

 

 

So sanctimonious even in your "apology" to the boards for your "part" in any of this. You couldn't just say "I''m sorry I wasted bandwidth on a pointless argument" or something to that extent. You have to create this elaborate display ordained with lofty language and the tiniest amount of veiled humility.

 

You are truly unbelievable.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. The only thing I can suggest is that you ignore me. Continuing to insult and provoke me isn't going to change anything. I'm not going to insult and provoke you in return.

 

 

 

 

[BarryAllen]

To everyone else: my apologies for contributing to the unnecessary sideshow.

 

Hope springs eternal, and from my vantage point, if you approach an issue from as many different angles as possible, something might be discovered in a discussion that knocks that last small block of disagreement out. Sure, discussions can become passionate, but you never know when that one point that makes all the difference, like a diamond hidden amongst the coal, is discovered.

 

That's my motivation.

 

I recognize that that is a futile effort in some cases, even if I don't believe that is ever a permanent condition. I apologize for not having the willingness to acknowledge that. I apologize for giving in, in whatever degree, to the provocation.

 

I should know better. My apologies.

 

 

So sanctimonious even in your "apology" to the boards for your "part" in any of this. You couldn't just say "I''m sorry I wasted bandwidth on a pointless argument" or something to that extent. You have to create this elaborate display ordained with lofty language and the tiniest amount of veiled humility.

 

You are truly unbelievable.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. The only thing I can suggest is that you ignore me. Continuing to insult and provoke me isn't going to change anything. I'm not going to insult and provoke you in return.

 

 

 

 

I am sure you are really broken up about it inside.

 

My goal has been to call out your particular brand of nonesense. You have chosen how and if you would respond. Feel free to ignore me as well, but I suspect, you won't be able to. Your need "educate" outweighs any normal other human reaction.

 

:shrug:

[rjpb]

Martin awoke from his Goodmansleep and summoned The Mighty Lee to his throne room.

 

"Donenfeld has sent forth a league of storied warriors to capture the hallowed realm of newsstands. I shall not idly wait for their success to pry the sacred dime from the hands of babes. 'Tis my wish supreme that you forge a fantastic team ready for most valiant battle. I have spoken!"

 

"Let this be my vow, Uncle. You shall have your team, and when the glorious battle is joined, the bards will forever sing of the greatness of this most silvered age!"