fatslob-:O said:
Dravenet7 said:
This is cute. I like it. It makes drilling the facts in easier for me. This is what Azuren said:
"And if Gamevice doesn't want to settle, doesn't want royalties, and wants to specifically stop the sale of the Switch as it exists right now, that's what will happen in the affected territories should Gamevice win.Now, unless you can respond with something that addresses that outside of "but it doesn't usually do that" despite Gamevice already expressing interest in doing just that, just stop. I'm not interested in getting caught in a repeating discussion."
Most of these 5 posts were responses to what Azuren's post in which the scenario of having to the Switch sales shut down by gameVice were essentially given the response of, essentially, "but it doesn't usually do that". In other words saying royalties were the only option. The reason your response is cute is because you literally trim out the bulk of what you said in which, is about royalties, damages, yada yada yada. The fact that in those posts I quoted, its MOST of what you said, and you clipped out a small piece of sentence for each in order to frame it as you only sprinkled royalties and the like in is sad. Sad and irrelavent. Your redudancy is in line with you ignoring the scenario Azuren was talking about. The only time you remotely address it is in #4.
|
The first bit isn't true as gamevice wants to settle regardless ... (Why else would they file a civil lawsuit ?)
@Bold How nice of you to pull a strawman ...  (And BTW response #3 wasn't intended for Azuren so that was just a reach on your part.)
Just because I recycle some of what I've said before doesn't mean that I can't raise a new point ... (Are you gonna forbid me for repeating some of the things I say now ? LOL)
|
I never said or insinuated you couldn't regurgitate your point. Sometimes you remphasize what your state point. I merely stated that him essentially requesting you either bring up new points or end this convo was not an aggressive post, but one of fatigue. I then proceeded to point out you made the same point 5 times in this thread. Yes, you sprinkled new things in your posts, something I at least brought up with #4. That doesn't change the fact that you made the same point 5 times.
And I'm fully aware not #3 wasn't directed towards him. I state in the beginning of the paragraph (the same one which you bolded a line and accused me of strawman), that MOST were directed towards him. So its clear that you favor selective reading.
Speaking of strawman, I was originally going to ignore your follow-up responses because I soundly made my point, but now you're accusing me of strawman, which I take very seriously. I'm curious how you think what you bolded is a strawman because it makes no sense to claim so.
