Lee wasn't paid by the word but he needed to write a lot of words to justify his employment. After all, if the artist was providing plot & notes, how does Lee justify getting 100% of the writer's fee?
-
-
Good for you. You backed up a questionable claim with evidence. I concede the point, although I could argue Lee had an ulterior motive for claiming that at this juncture. I'm doing this for two reasons. /1
-
Wait, so he has an ‘ulterior motive’ for the things he says under oath in court but we should take his statements in interviews as being ‘ in good faith’?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The first is that you'll follow the example and politely admit error when you've erred, instead of digging in your heels and trying to bully your interlocutor. /2
-
I'm sorry but I have no further interest in engaging with you. Your comments are inevitably dishonest, blustery defenses of corrupt corporate policies. Best wishes, JH
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The second is that you accept Lee is generally speaking in good faith, and not accuse him of being dishonest when he's said something you find inconvenient. Otherwise, you're engaging in cherry-picking--something an ostensibly serious historian should always avoid. Carry on. /3
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.