Also Charles Lindberg was right!!! being against war is always good.

Anybody think the two Cap books look a lot like those Doc Savage novels from the same time?

Apology accepted (although I deny that being wrong when you're telling somebody else that THEY are wrong is not something to apologize for; why is it when somebody is "Pure D"---and conclusively proven to be---wrong TO me, being wrong is nothing to care about, but when I'm wrong---or merely can't provide the proof that I'm right---I'm supposed to shout my supposed error to the hills? It's been that way all my life and I hate it!). And I again make my apology for not giving you a decent time to respond. The actual points I meant to make were that it was quite ironic that the Code seal was inadvertently left off an issue that had a Code--oriented controversy about its content, and that it was funny that Brian had posted a scan of the wrong cover, given that his intent was to demonstrate the missing Code seal---that's irrefutable---and in that era, Marvel's direct distribution copies didn't carry it at all (THAT, I admit, is an error that was no big deal in the sense that Brian didn't need to apologize for it).

In Paul Smith's second issue of X-Men/Alpha Flight, I swear that's Barry Windsor Smith inking on a hanful of pages (pages 35-39), even though only Bob Wiacek is in the credits. Let me know if anyone has any thoughts or knowledge on this. Thanks.

Absolutely right. That very thing occurred to me after I had gotten off the computer yesterday, and I apologize to John for my impatience. I probably won't be able to check at all tomorrow, just for the record.

I think the focus was on the Captain America comic, not the Uncanny X-Men issue. I think the latter just served as a piece of secondary evidence, so pointing out that the inclusion of the direct distribution version fo the issue and saying it proved absolutely nothing was just nit picking.

The legend wasn't focused on issue 137 of Uncanny, it's just an interesting tidbit, so you pointing out the problems of the direct distribution version (in your words), "proves absolutely nothing".

Jack Kirby did pencil the first 10 issues, with Simon helping out here and there and inking. Some people think Kirby should be considered co-creator.
IIRC Simon sued Marvel for Captain America while Kirby was working there in the late 60s, Marvel pitted the two against each other.

Globalist? Yep. Doesn't believe in borders, believes in nonsensical multilateral negotiations, and so on. The only difference is that, again, he believes that globalist power should ultimately lie in the hands of Big Business.

The globalist Marxists aren't as sure where they want the power to be. It's usually some weasel phrase like "international community" that can mean completely different things to different people. In every case, though, it's basically some oligarchy.

Take a second look at my posting and you will see that I said that the direct-distribution edition's cover proved nothing because those did not carry the Code seal; I still think that they didn't and it doesn't. The other scan corrects GREG's mistake (posting the wrong cover), not proves that I made one. I never at all said that Greg was wrong to say that the issue did not carry the Code seal. NEVER! Furthermore, I also included "...as I recall...." No absolute certainty there whatsoever, and for that alone you owe me an apology, if not for the rest (but you do). If you want to claim I'm wrong about something here, show that direct-distribution copies DID carry the seal. The you can state that I'm posting "straight out of [my] ass...." But you'll still owe me an apology for "absolute certainty."