Search results

Let's rotate the board!

I was hoping someone would ask! Follow the below link! Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit

Ooooh, I can hear the hatred just dripping from his voice! What a scoundrel!

Ah! But telekinesis is also on the wizard spell list! Checkmate!

I must say, I didn't realize Mitchell and Webb were pro-D&D wizard. This is new information for me, but it kind of makes sense.

*wheelie! And yes, it is! On another occasion, he did an endo and kicked up dirt into the eyes of some kidnappers! I was blown away by his mad BMX skills!

That's BMX Bandit to you! And for your information, he's like, really, REALLY good with his bike! I once saw him disarm a terrorist by popping a wheelie! No joke!

Would it be consistent with your assertions? Sure. Would it corroborate your assertions? No. That's what you seem to be confused about. If you can't be honest with yourself about that distinction, then you won't be able to produce research of any significant value.

The problem with your analysis is that it's all conjecture and you draw conclusions that are outside the scope of what's reasonable. 1. It's possible that Arneson did get his hands on Chainmail right away. It might seem unlikely to you, but it's possible. 2. It's also possible that Arneson...

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing in favour of a particular date. I don't need to do that. I'm merely trying to show you that your date is "far from a certainty" and doesn't deserve the degree of confidence you've placed in it. You seem to understand that even though it's common practice to...

I guess you didn't read lowkey's explanation that closely, because this was explained. The incentive for choosing a later date is that your copyright expires later, which was particularly relevant back then when copyrights only lasted a maximum of 56 years. Read lowkey's post again.

.

Maybe arbitrary should have been qualified. Maybe lowkey should have said "largely arbitrary" or "somewhat arbitrary". However, the omission of an appropriate qualifier doesn't invalidate lowkey's point, which was extremely well articulated. I understood it perfectly clearly. Let me break this...

Look man, you're just making stuff up. You say things like "no, it's not like that. It's got to be like this instead" and you appear to think that that's a reasonable argument. Some of the things you are asserting could be true, but you don't do any of the work necessary to establish how or why...

You did good.

You know that it's in the interest of the applicant to choose the latest reasonable date, right? @lowkey13 , please spell it out for him in black and white without any snark, because he really doesn't get it and needs to understand.

See this, right here? That's not scholarship! You're making blind inductions based on information you don't understand, and you don't seem at all interested in untangling what this new information actually means. What you should be doing now is looking into how copyright applications actually...

Good find. Something for the OP to investigate, if he cares to.

I think it might help if you tone down the snark just a smidge. And yes, that must have been an extraordinarily productive Saturday! Gary invented three games from scratch and made it down to the copyright office and back in time for supper!

I think it's true that the level of discourse has at times gotten a little heated/personal, but you're wrong to say that all the attacks have been directed at you and not at your arguments. There have been plenty of cogent criticisms advanced that you have decided to ignore, sidestep, or weakly...