I think we’ve all made those kinds of posts. :)
np mate - we’ve all been there at some point I think :)
For what it’s worth, I thought it was fun!
Also, I mean, I wasn’t really much of a Usenet guy given that I was, you know, a child. So I missed most of the really good Derek flamewars. It was almost like I could see back in time for a moment. . .
While I was a “fan” of cleve’s ranting I never read much of the classics at the time. I only posted once in those threads. It was to make a tangential joke. The quip was somehow interpreted as an insult and resulted in a multi page rage rant. That was plenty for me.
Let me reply more diplomatically.
No, let’s not “go”. There is no going here. This is you trying to create arguments. Stop it. I gave some news and made a very simple and clear statement about it. Stop trying to turn every post I make into an attempt to prove something wrong.
If you read my words and wondered if I had meant that a new indemnification agreement had been signed, or anything not clearly stated by my words, the proper thing to do is ask.
Like this:
Thrag: “It confirms as assumed that Stardock has indemnified Valve.”
Derek: “Are you saying there had to be a new special indemnification agreement” (or whatever the assumption you are making is)
Thrag: “No, we have no way of knowing that at this point. The quote from the letter I linked only indicated that an indemnification agreement exists”.
You did not miss anything. It quickly got old then as it does today. Besides, they all ended with the same guy losing anyway. :D
But it makes it hard to dunk on strawmen if you argue in good faith!
Quite. I made a post not long ago summarizing my beliefs and opinion on this case. If someone wanted to argue about relevant and substantive matters to the case right there was a perfect opening for a worthwhile and relevant argument. To that I get complete agreement. Yet a perceived misuse of a word in a short announcement of new info, that’s apparently a throw down. It’s been a repeating pattern in the thread and obviously I’ve gotten a little tired of it.
Sorry but I’m not responsible for your comprehension skills or lack thereof. A part of any healthy discussion is one in which people are free to respectfully engage in meaningful discourse. If you set your expectations beyond the realms of that which you are willing to aspire to, that’s your problem, not mine.
What you refer to as “trolling” isn’t even within the scope of our arguments. Yes, I’m anal like that - so I checked the stats and was shocked to learn that you’re just making up things to fit a narrative.
In the recent exchange, you decided that you were going to jump on me because you have this misconception that discussions are supposed to fit within your world view and expectations. Even though I tried to explain my position and thinking as best I could, that still wasn’t good enough; so you decided to resort to and engage in further unwarranted and baseless attacks.
Oh, so you’re the victim now? That’s so cute.
Know what? Fuck it. I’m out.
No, you replied to a bit of news I posted to jump on my use of the word “assumed”. It’s right up there. No need to lie about it.
Thank god.
Is this when we’re supposed to spam crab rave?
In actual lawsuit news, there’s a new doc on courtlistener. GoG’s response and request to dismiss the fraud claim against them.
Only a teeny bit of table pounding from these attorneys.
Now, in their Second Amended Counterclaim, and in the eleventh hour as the
parties barrel toward trial, Reiche and Ford—for the first time—have dragged in
GOG, a digital distribution platform selling the Classic Star Control Games pursuant
to distribution agreements with both sides, and Origins pursuant to a distribution
agreement with Stardock.
After I hit “eleventh hour” I started reading in Don Lafontaine voice, which made slogging through the rest of the document far more enjoyable.
It is mainly argued on the basis that the claim doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for such a claim. Mostly things I imagine will be filled in or clarified in some way in a response to the motion. I wouldn’t wager on how the motion goes. It seems entirely plausible this part of the claim could be dismissed since fraud has a high bar.
Longtime lurker. This was my favorite part.
Setting aside the mental gymnastics necessary to understand Reiche and
Ford’s theory of GOG’s liability, Reiche and Ford wholly fail to identify with any
specificity “what” information GOG should have disclosed regarding the alleged
expiration of the Atari-GOG Agreement, “when” and “where” the concealment
allegedly occurred, “how” or “who” at GOG should have conveyed to Reiche and
Ford the information it allegedly concealed.So did this little nugget get unwrapped or is this all about that clerk’s letter from 2017?
I love it when they at least make it entertaining. The judge on this case still holds the title for funniest statement.
Isn’t the discovery period for this almost done? Are they seriously still going to let it go into a trial?
They are fighting over extending the discovery period after the addition of GOG and Valve. Stardock apparently wants to extend it by several months, while P&F just want an extra month or so. Stardock is also apparently dragging its feet on making Brad and others available for depositions.
Gee, I wonder why they wouldn’t want Brad to talk to anyone? 🙄
Elestan – Where is that information coming from?