Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 11 11

[Prince Namor]

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

“Just for kicks, I wanted to try something different… for a while I’d been toying with the idea of doing a strip that would violate all the conventions - break all the rules. A strip that would actually feature a teenager as the star, instead of making him an (ugh!) adult hero’s sidekick.”

As anyone who has followed comics for long enough knows... it's complete nonsense to think that in 1962, a "strip that would actually feature a teenager as the star, instead of making him an (ugh!) adult hero’s sidekick.” was "something different" or hadn't been done before. Yet Lee was never called out on this, and people would use it as a way to say, "Wow what a visionary."

 

Seems like a nitpick. Spider-Man certainly was "something different" which I think can fairly be said to "violate[d] all the conventions - break all the rules." Prior solo teen heroes, like Robin in Star Spangled and Superboy in Adventure did not act like Peter Parker. Spider-Man was a fresh take. Do you really disagree? If you don't, then maybe what Stan was trying to say was a lead character that acted like a real teenager. This is not earth shattering to me. Hardly appears to be an intentional lie denying Superboy's existence. Arguably a misstatement - absolutely.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:12 PM, Prince Namor said:

No one made the claim that Kirby wasn't human or fallible.

Others have created it simply because Lee has been called out on his LIES, to go along with stealing credit and pay from his artists for over a decade, and some fans feel the only way they can defend Lee's lies is to say, "Kirby lied too!"

You and others are missing the point. Both Kirby and Lee made misstatements. In fact, they both made misstatements about creator credit of characters. Jack most famously claiming he alone (or he and Joe Simon) created Spider-Man in the 1989 Groth interview. Or his many misstatements in the 1966 declaration under penalty of perjury against Joe Simon's claim to Captain America. Yet, you reserve the harsh term "lie" for just about every Stan Lee misstatement and do not, as far as I've seen, ever use that term for a Kirby misstatement.

The reality is that they were both humans and both made misstatements. Some may well have been lies. But not all of Lee's were lies and not all of Kirby's were honest mistakes.

What this goes to is whether your presentation is balanced or slanted.

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:12 PM, Prince Namor said:

Lee has been called out on his LIES, to go along with stealing ... pay from his artists for over a decade

Let's focus on this. Are you contending that Lee stole pay from Kirby in the 1960s that Marvel owed Kirby for his writing?

Because Jack Kirby never sued Marvel/Lee for breaching his contract, even when he left Marvel, and any such suit could have reached back for recovery of 6 years of owed pay, plus prejudgment interest, plus a shot at extracontractual damages. Yet Kirby didn't file the suit. So why?

One possibility is that Jack Kirby negotiated the page rate he wanted, knowing that he was working under the Marvel Method not a full script, and therefore had no claim against Marvel for additional pay under the contractual agreement he negotiated (whether oral or written). That view is certainly supported by many of the statements made by Kirby in interviews. Its also supported by the many checks that Kirby cashed without complaining. And by the fact that when Ditko walked out Kirby declined to join him despite Ditko's request.

Likewise, Marvel never sued Stan for breach of his contract based on the allegation he obtained compensation he did not earn. Not when Goodman was in charge and not after Goodman left. Why not? 

One possibility is that Marvel understood Stan's compensation to be in line with what he did. 

If you are going to prove Stan stole money Marvel owed Kirby, you are going to need the basic proof that Kirby's contract with Marvel entitled him to the "more money" that Lee supposedly stole. 

 

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:49 PM, comicwiz said:

You found fault in Kirby respectuflly addressing a former employer in court as a "mistatement" due to memory. 

 

No. I pointed out that Kirby stated: "I met Joe Simon at a place called Victor Fox just before I came here [Timely]." And I pointed out that Victor Fox was not a "place" and the description of the timing was artful in support of Marvel's arguments. He wasn't "respectfully addressing a former employer in court." He wasn't in court. It was a signed and written out of court declaration. So whatever point you are trying to make here is not convincing me. 

On 10/11/2024 at 2:49 PM, comicwiz said:

Your repitition is not only a reminder of the fact you responded twice, but that both times you remarked on his bad memory. 

"Faulty" recall decades after the fact for Kirby, compared to you not recalling you replied twice a few days apart. 

The pot, meet kettle reference was a software way of saying, maybe you shouldn't bring up Kirby's memory when you might have memory and cognition impairments of your own.

I really don't think me making multiple responses to a post has any relevance to this debate. I do think that you accusing me of "memory and cognition impairments" is a personal attack which violates Mike's guidelines. A civil request: Why not take down the post so Mike doesn't shut down this thread again? 

[comicwiz]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:59 PM, sfcityduck said:

I really don't think me making multiple responses to a post has any relevance to this debate. I do think that you accusing me of "memory and cognition impairments" is a personal attack which violates Mike's guidelines. A civil request: Why not take down the post so Mike doesn't shut down this thread again? 

You responded again to it within hours of this thread reopening, I didn't really want to address it, but you continued to remark on Kirby's bad memory.

Don't like it, don't respond to the same post twice. Especially when you're harping on someone's bad memory, and you can't remember you responded a few days ago to the exact same post.

It's really that simple. 

I know I've never responded twice to the same post.

Especially when an admin has asked not to engage.

Also, don't bring up Kirby's bad memory when you seem to have an issue remembering you answered this already. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/10/2024 at 5:56 AM, namisgr said:

On 10/10/2024 at 1:11 AM, Prince Namor said:

I GET IT.

You have nothing.

YOU LOST.

It's attitudes like this that have no place in a healthy, respectful board discussion.

Agreed.

Also, hell just froze over. 

[jimjum12]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

Let's focus on this. Are you contending that Lee stole pay from Kirby in the 1960s that Marvel owed Kirby for his writing?

This part was always the "grit in my shell." and it seems to be due to certain people dismissing the value of the actual captions and dialog that Lee provided, and assuming that Lee was somehow wrong in charging for that and his alleged role in any plot discussions. I always felt he earned that pay. NO stealing. 

On 10/11/2024 at 5:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

If you are going to prove Stan stole money Marvel owed Kirby, you are going to need the basic proof that Kirby's contract with Marvel entitled him to the "more money" that Lee supposedly stole. 

I am so hoping a copy or two of the contracts will be in Chaz' book, as I genuinely want to see one and some of the other documents. Kirby did Claim he had them. I'm hoping it will be interesting. I'm not posting a lot more until I've read the book. Only fair, right? GOD BLESS... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

Edited October 12 by jimjum12

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:09 PM, comicwiz said:

You responded again to it within hours of this thread reopening, I didn't really want to address it, but you continued to remark on Kirby's bad memory.

Don't like it, don't respond to the same post twice. Especially when you're harping on someone's bad memory, and you can't remember you responded a few days ago to the exact same post.

It's really that simple. 

I know I've never responded twice to the same post.

Especially when an admin has asked not to engage.

Also, don't bring up Kirby's bad memory when you seem to have an issue remembering you answered this already. 

Kirby had a bad memory. Gary Groth of TCJ, who no one is going to accuse of being anti-Kirby, posted this tactful comment at the top of his Kirby interview: "Jack’s wife, Roz, sat in on the interviews and helped recall with precision key points in Jack’s career." And help she did, to the point of just telling Kirby what to say, an example for you since you wondered how Joe Simon ended up with Jack Kirby art earlier in this thread:

GROTH: Since you worked for yourself you didn’t have to give the art to a publisher. Do you have any idea what happened to all the original art?

KIRBY: God, I don’t know.

ROZ KIRBY: We had a lot of the romance pages and Joe had some romance. And I gave pages back to someone to return back to the authors.

As for responding to a post more than once, it can lead to shorter more focused posts. So I do it. But I'll respond to the other argument you make in your post: "Especially when admin asked not to engage." That hasn't happened. What Mike said is this:

I expect this debate to remain civil.  That means no personal attacks at people that you disagree with.  Do not make it personal.  This got out of line and caused the thread to be locked.  By now, most all have made up their mind as to which side they are on.  Yes, there are sides.  Some do not like to see their comic creator idol raked across the coals.  Others want to expose him for taking credit away from others.  This can be discussed.  However, I have been more than patient in this thread.  Some people say remove the trolls that are attacking the book.  I am not going to do that for obvious reasons.  The author had to know that there are going to be some people that have strong feelings against what was written.  They are not trolls.  On the flip side, the author has a right to defend what he has written.  People have the right to agree with what was written in the book, thus defending the author.  They are not trolls either.  All of this can be discussed here in a civil manner. 

I think you need to listen to Mike. Cracks like " don't bring up Kirby's bad memory when you seem to have an issue remembering you answered this already" and that I have "memory and cognition impairments" in your prior post are out of line. Do you really want the thread shut down? I do not.

 

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:10 AM, CGC Mike said:

It's still my favorite hangout.  

I'm here for you. 

On 10/11/2024 at 12:31 PM, sfcityduck said:

With all respect, I think your post falls prey to the fallacy of "false balance" or  "both sidesism" in which a false dichotomy is offered between two opposing viewpoints based on the assertion that the reader or viewer can pick between them to find the truth. The problem with that presentation is that it assumes that either Stan Lee in Origins or the response by Chaz or ("Chuck"  as folks are calling him here) Gower is somehow the truth and a "balanced view" can be discerned by reading one or both books. But that's clearly not the case. 

Why? Because Stan Lee's assertions in Origins are statements presented in a moment in time without the surrounding context. And "Stan Lee Lied," based on what's been stated by the author on this site, is not a "balanced" presentation. So you are asking the reader to make a judgment based on two flawed presentations. How can they?

The reality is that there is a "balanced" presentation that can be made, but "Stan Lee Lied" does not attempt to present it. If he's prosecuting a "one-sided" case, as reviewers have stated and you seem not to dispute, than how is a reader of the book supposed to arrive at the truth? They can't. And that's a valid criticism of the book. Far better that a book was written which actually looks at all of the evidence, not just the evidence supporting the conclusion the author has been pushing on message boards or blogs for over a decade.

Someone sent me a link to this today, and it's a brilliant example of what I think is a balanced attempt to represent Stan, "warts and all".

The description of the book openly condemns hagiography and admits Stan's flaws while still remembering the benefits he brought to the table. 

Now, this I would gladly read because it's making an attempt to not pull any punches, and speak openly about both sides of the discussion. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/michael.t.gilbert/posts/pfbid0yJpiSxA3Vw7ktxqX5uKTA2jJ1SKNMcyg4oGt4rRmqkfNsg4JrQVLPYiuyuLGbm98l?rdid=KOrTNoT4OEJpIuWM

STAN THE MAN…

Earlier this week I gave a glowing mini-review of Tom Scioli’s graphic novel, Jack Kirby the Epic Life of the King of Comics.

Some of you suggested I try the flip side, with Tom’s graphic bio of Jack’s most famous collaborator, Stan Lee. So, I secured a copy of I Am Stan - A Graphic Biography of the Legendary Stan Lee (Ten Speed Graphic 2023).

I found it fascinating and (as was the case with Tom’s Kirby book). It’s well researched and documented — or at least as much as history like this can be documented at this late date. Much of the dialogue comes directly from Lee and those who knew him.

Like most comic fans who grew up in the sixties, Stan Lee was my idol. The “cool” face of comic books when I was a twelve-year-old fan at the beginning of the Marvel Age.

By the seventies, the bloom had gone off the rose, with Stan’s name plastered over dozens of mostly mediocre Marvel comics he had neither written nor drawn. I still have a fondness for Stan, mostly for the joy he (and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko) brought me when I was a kid. But in the decades since, my opinion of Marvel’s main writer/ editor has been lowered greatly, for many of the reasons depicted in Tom’s excellent book.

I Am Stan is a warts-and-all commentary. As such, I find it to be more valuable to comic historians than the more “official” Lee hagiographies that have popped up over the years.

Tom depicts a young Stan Lee as a wise-guy narcissistic. He’s seen as fun-loving guy, who could be irritating — even cruel at times. His narcissism only increased at Stan got older. Throughout Tom’s biography, we see two sides of Lee.

First, the enthusiastic comic fan, who exuded joy and was a great cheerleader for the artists he worked with and loved. We see the tireless writer (who typed out scripts by candlelight during a total blackout in New York in the sixties). We see the sweet, funny guy who loved comics and often went the extra mile for his fans. A proud father to his daughter J.C, and a loving husband to wife Joan.

We also see the attention-starved Stan Lee. The one that hopped on any trendy bandwagon to grab some reflected glory. To seem “hip.” The one willing to take credit for the work of others (I’m looking at YOU, Stan and Steve!), or let others do the work while he got the byline (as was the case with the Spider-Man newspaper strip, mostly scripted by Roy Thomas for decades).

Stan (and wife Joan) loved money and position. Lee achieved that in part by letting the artists do the lion’s share of the scripting, while keeping most, if not all, of the writing pay. He could get away with that because he was the editor as well as the main writer.

As the years went by, Lee found it more lucrative to side with management, even at the expense of his fellow creators. Tom has a scene showing how Lee would sometimes work against their best interests, like when he refused to help Neal Adams start a union for comic creators in the seventies.

At times Scioli gets too verbose, with dialogue squeezing out his art on some pages. But then Stan did like to talk. But other times he does a brilliant job, visually. This was the case with a psychedelic 9-panel page showing Stan morphing his appearance over the decades.

And had some excellent scenes showing an old, tired Stan Lee slowly losing everything he once cared about. Even the most rabid Stan Lee haters must feel a little sorry for Stan at the end of his life as he’s exploited by shady, sharp-talking operators (one of which included his closest relative). Lee was an easy mark because he craved the spotlight and the promise of fame and fortune, and would do almost anything to get it.

Sadly, by the end of his life he was mostly shuffled to comic cons where he signed by rote anything put in front of him for a large fee. At that point he’d likely have preferred to just rest. By then his beloved wife had died, and even his daughter and husband were suing him. It was a sad end to one of the most famous and beloved comic creators.

But the saddest thing, was that in a lot of ways, Stan did it to himself.

And Tom Scioli did a great job depicting his rise and fall.

Edited October 11 by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:25 AM, sfcityduck said:

 what Stan was trying to say 

LOL. Yeah.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:49 AM, comicwiz said:

You found fault in Kirby respectuflly addressing a former employer in court as a "mistatement" due to memory. 

There's no sense in discussing it.

Kirby is held to the letter of EXACTLY what he said (even though he didn't type it - did the secretary or whoever transcribed it misquote him?), regardless if he clarified anything later - sometimes even in the same interview...

...whereas we have to be constantly reminded of 'what Stan MEANT' in his 50 years of saying he created it all and simply assigned an artist to the work.

Anyone who wants to debate on THAT playing field (and talk about a fair, balanced approach), is simply trying to tilt the discussion in their favor - while accusing the other side of doing so. 

[Prince Namor]

[Prince Namor]

I prefer this review of Scioli's book. 

https://fourcolorsinners.com/2023/09/12/stan-lee-is-god-reviewing-tom-sciolis-same-old-same-old-i-am-stan-a-graphic-biography-of-the-legendary-stan-lee/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF2j0NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfQ84vUi6cRMa6Qh1IHLWbzDrrGaJo5r8heb0b70J2357cavAWCII4fd9g_aem_Z_TbvwHWXq9csr6WPTV8wQ

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

Seems like a nitpick. Spider-Man certainly was "something different" which I think can fairly be said to "violate[d] all the conventions - break all the rules." Prior solo teen heroes, like Robin in Star Spangled and Superboy in Adventure did not act like Peter Parker. Spider-Man was a fresh take. Do you really disagree? If you don't, then maybe what Stan was trying to say was a lead character that acted like a real teenager. This is not earth shattering to me. Hardly appears to be an intentional lie denying Superboy's existence. Arguably a misstatement - absolutely.

 

On 10/11/2024 at 3:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

LOL. Yeah.

 

Not sure why the response is empty of substance. I'll take it as agreement.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:14 PM, Prince Namor said:

You're pointing at me - which I thought Mike said we shouldn't do.

 

I agree. But your comment points both ways. Several of your supporters should take your message here to heart. The personal attacks have got to stop.

And, in addition, a truly civil conversation should involve substantive responses not cryptic sarcasm.

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 10/11/2024 at 8:48 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I've been working through the book and it does exactly what it says on the cover. It's not a biography, so I'm not sure why many are criticising it for being - for want of a better phrase - 'one sided'. As I see it, the starting point is Stan's book. That doesn't include any self criticism. It is a one sided attempt to present history as Stan would want the reader to see it. Chuck's book simply rebuts the content of Stan's book, citing sources. The reader can get the balanced view by reading both books and then making their minds up. That's what I'm doing. I knew Stan wasn't whiter than white, but I wasn't quite prepared for learning the extent to which that was the case.

Chuck, I'm secretly jealous of anyone who gets a comic related book into print. It remains one of my own goals, and when I finally get around to it, it will be based on facts and only facts. Well done for getting your book out there, and giving readers the opportunity to see Stan in a different, likely far more realistic light.  

You're being too reasonable.

Get out.

Edited October 12 by Hulksdaddy1

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:12 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 2:06 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby fanatics would be wise to remember that Kirby is human and fallible.

No one made the claim that Kirby wasn't human or fallible.

Others have created it simply because Lee has been called out on his LIES, to go along with stealing credit and pay from his artists for over a decade, and some fans feel the only way they can defend Lee's lies is to say, "Kirby lied too!"

YES!

You're reading my mind. 

On 10/11/2024 at 2:29 PM, sfcityduck said:

You and others are missing the point. Both Kirby and Lee made misstatements. In fact, they both made misstatements about creator credit of characters. Jack most famously claiming he alone (or he and Joe Simon) created Spider-Man in the 1989 Groth interview. Or his many misstatements in the 1966 declaration under penalty of perjury against Joe Simon's claim to Captain America. Yet, you reserve the harsh term "lie" for just about every Stan Lee misstatement and do not, as far as I've seen, ever use that term for a Kirby misstatement.

The reality is that they were both humans and both made misstatements. Some may well have been lies. But not all of Lee's were lies and not all of Kirby's were honest mistakes.

What this goes to is whether your presentation is balanced or slanted.

Yes!

An omission of evidence is still considered intellectually dishonest and omitting evidence to change the perception that makes Stan's sins appear "smaller" and Kirby's sins appear larger is still intellectually dishonest. 

On 10/11/2024 at 2:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

Let's focus on this. Are you contending that Lee stole pay from Kirby in the 1960s that Marvel owed Kirby for his writing?

Because Jack Kirby never sued Marvel/Lee for breaching his contract, even when he left Marvel, and any such suit could have reached back for recovery of 6 years of owed pay, plus prejudgment interest, plus a shot at extracontractual damages. Yet Kirby didn't file the suit. So why?

One possibility is that Jack Kirby negotiated the page rate he wanted, knowing that he was working under the Marvel Method not a full script, and therefore had no claim against Marvel for additional pay under the contractual agreement he negotiated (whether oral or written). That view is certainly supported by many of the statements made by Kirby in interviews. Its also supported by the many checks that Kirby cashed without complaining. And by the fact that when Ditko walked out Kirby declined to join him despite Ditko's request.

Likewise, Marvel never sued Stan for breach of his contract based on the allegation he obtained compensation he did not earn. Not when Goodman was in charge and not after Goodman left. Why not? 

One possibility is that Marvel understood Stan's compensation to be in line with what he did. 

If you are going to prove Stan stole money Marvel owed Kirby, you are going to need the basic proof that Kirby's contract with Marvel entitled him to the "more money" that Lee supposedly stole. 

 

This is a point some were trying to make in the conversation early on. 

There is a lot of grey area in fledgling, startup industries where everyone is "chipping in" and I agree that if Kirby was "satisfied" with his negotiated "page rates" to subsidize his losses, and was willing to work with under that compromise for a decade, then that's again ON HIM. 

On 10/11/2024 at 3:09 PM, comicwiz said:

You responded again to it within hours of this thread reopening, I didn't really want to address it, but you continued to remark on Kirby's bad memory.

How many times someone responds with a (or the same) point has nothing to do with the person and everything to do with the point. 

You keep talking about people in this thread but not addressing the point. No matter how politely you do it, it's still problematic. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:49 PM, comicwiz said:

You found fault in Kirby respectuflly addressing a former employer in court as a "mistatement" due to memory.

On 10/11/2024 at 3:57 PM, Prince Namor said:

There's no sense in discussing it.

Kirby is held to the letter of EXACTLY what he said (even though he didn't type it - did the secretary or whoever transcribed it misquote him?), regardless if he clarified anything later - sometimes even in the same interview...

 

Comicwiz is discussing the 1966 declaration under oath by Kirby. That why he says, erroneously, "in court." So your reference to him "clarifying" in the "same interview" is not on point to this discussion.

You do ask a good question: "even though he didn't type it - did the secretary or whoever transcribed it misquote him?"

Here's the answer: Jack Kirby swore under oath that  he dictated his comments to "Lili Cohen who typed up this history," then "after I read it over and made a few additions," Ms. Cohen "re-typed it" and he signed it.  But that was not it. He then made some handwritten changes to the declaration, initialed each page to signal he'd read them, dictated an additional paragraph titled Insertion 1 and initialed that, and then executed an additional affidavit stating that the handwritten changes were his.

In other words, yeah, Jack read and reviewed this document to ensure that there were no "misquotes." And the proof of that is his own handwritten changes, initials, and declarations about that process. So, no, Kirby fans cannot claim that these were not Kirby's words. 

You are stuck with Jack Kirby's 1966 declaration.

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:27 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby had a bad memory. Gary Groth of TCJ, who no one is going to accuse of being anti-Kirby, posted this tactful comment at the top of his Kirby interview: "Jack’s wife, Roz, sat in on the interviews and helped recall with precision key points in Jack’s career." And help she did, to the point of just telling Kirby what to say, an example for you since you wondered how Joe Simon ended up with Jack Kirby art earlier in this thread:

GROTH: Since you worked for yourself you didn’t have to give the art to a publisher. Do you have any idea what happened to all the original art?

KIRBY: God, I don’t know.

ROZ KIRBY: We had a lot of the romance pages and Joe had some romance. And I gave pages back to someone to return back to the authors.

I made the case earlier that Kirby was far more successful in business with a partner and those partners were Simon, Lee and ultimately Roz.

On 10/11/2024 at 3:57 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 2:49 PM, comicwiz said:

You found fault in Kirby respectuflly addressing a former employer in court as a "mistatement" due to memory. 

There's no sense in discussing it.

Kirby is held to the letter of EXACTLY what he said (even though he didn't type it - did the secretary or whoever transcribed it misquote him?), regardless if he clarified anything later - sometimes even in the same interview...

...whereas we have to be constantly reminded of 'what Stan MEANT' in his 50 years of saying he created it all and simply assigned an artist to the work.

Anyone who wants to debate on THAT playing field (and talk about a fair, balanced approach), is simply trying to tilt the discussion in their favor - while accusing the other side of doing so. 

Not quite. 

sfcityduck's premise is that a court statement can and should be held to much more scrutiny and personal accountability than a press or a prepared release that Stan may not have even written himself, as Origins was discussed to have been a few days ago. 

And both of these things above are different again from a personal interview. Each needs to be examined in it's own context. 

You can't hold every statement on the same ground because when, where, why, who and what was said are ALL important factors. 

You seem to only apply value to 'what' was said, often removing context and applying full weight when it supports your thesis and brushing it off when it doesn't.

The Thor attributes discussion was a perfect example of taking two quotes and giving them as a counterpoint to each other when they actually weren't. They were just small pieces of a larger puzzle that didn't prove the point you were trying to make with them.