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: 9651416" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Given that you have such very strong feelings on the subject, I will try to be as nice as possible despite this claim. I will note the following before I very briefly* defend what I wrote- first, I am sure you remember that writing rambling posts about D&D history isn't my actual job, and maybe you might want to reconsider calling me a liar given what you are arguing. Second, the reason I chose to make a very involved post about this was because of your comment which seemed to ignore all of the history involved to make what appeared to be a bizarre point which contained multiple errors.** I would further note that you can't cherrypick passages to make claims- I recommend everyone feel free to read the history and make up their own minds.*Under the Snarfian definition of "briefly."**I edited this out. I recommend against using legal terms to try and enhance points, as always. However, given the tenor of your comments, and the claim you make that I am lying, I will state the following:The final judgment of the case is from the Hon. Robert Read. Feel free to find the relevant sections of the judgment and cite them to all of us to show why you are correct that I am stating 100% falsehoods (as well as support all of your claims about how Gygax was so wronged). Or, if you are unable to, you can go ahead and cite to the book that I already provided, with the pages I already gave that detail the events, and explain back to me why I am wrong using the source that I gave.Now, if you do that and you still want to make the argument that I am lying because, um, "No one can ever say for sure that Gygax was lying, because who knows what lurks in the hearts of men, and instead the Court only found (as the Court decides disputed facts) that Gygax sat on his rights and that the Court made a ruling as a matter of fact that, inter alia, Gygax had offered to buy the shares of the Blumes in April, and therefore the Court only found that the testimony of the Blumes and other third parties and the documents was credible, while the testimony of Gygax was not credible, which isn't lying, because it's just a factual finding of a disputed fact that the Court made that wasn't necessary to the resolution of the claim ..."Well, knock yourself out! Given Gygax's history of prevarication, and the abundant testimony and documents that contradicted his self-serving testimony, I am confortable with my formulation - certainly as an opinion bolstered by reality. I will leave it to others after they also look at the source materials as to whether they believe Gygax's testimony was credible. That said, I always appreciate additional historical research. If you upload any source documents or can point to recent scholarship that I can verify about factual claims, I am happy to review them! I would truly appreciate that. I don't mind, at all, being a liar ... so long as I learn something new! But your post in long on vitriol and lacking any citations.I think it was the famous economist, Abraham Maynard Lincoln, who said, <s>"In the long run, we're all dead, so why so mad?" </s>"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"</blockquote>

Verification