Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8506848" data-attributes="member: 7023840">When someone focuses on a single thing, and not the substance of an argument, you know they have lost. But since you seem very concerned about this, I will explain this to you simply-I was making up a quote so that you would understand how your argument appears to other people. Of course you didn't use those words- I thought "amirite" might be a giveaway and save you from having to search, but sometimes it helps clarify what you appear to be saying.Finally, you asserted several times that things had to be a certain way. No, of course not. I just gave you one way in which it doesn't have to be that way.Really? Tell me more! Oh wise one, discovery happens prior to any amendment of the Complaint! So what you're saying is that if they amended pursuant to FRCP 15(a)(1)(A), then discovery already happened? Thanks for the tip- the more you know.(For those who don't know, this isn't true.)If they have no case, then WOTC doesn't need to be through in their rights.If I sue Coca Cola and say that own all their bases, and if I don't, then my good friend Chad does, Coca Cola doesn't have to depose Chad if they already have the documents to show that neither I, nor Chad, own its bases.I'm guessing you missed the point of that. I was just again making the point that until nuTSR's filing, this hadn't been done. Moreover, AFAIK, no artist or writer or contributor to TSR has made a similar claim of any kind regarding the IP of WOTC or TSR. On the internet, no one knows you are a dog. Which is why obvious things are obvious.Woof.</blockquote>

Verification