Recent content by RobF

I have no idea what that even means, man. If you're really concerned about the weight of my opinion then feel free to google me rather than look at my post count and you're welcome to judge me further from there. You can find my writing and my games pretty easily. I don't expect you to like...

Firstly, no I didn't. I can read and comprehend words perfectly fine, thank you. Secondly, no there isn't because that would be a very silly rule indeed. Thirdly, I'm not insulting the editor, I'm questioning the quality of the work. There's a pretty major difference, man. And rather...

I think you misunderstand. I -never- have a problem with articles I merely disagree with. Articles that are misleading, dubious in their claims (see repeated "Langdell has a case" when that's severely in doubt right now) and either ill researched or willingly ignoring any evidence to support a...

How, given the evidence produced and the evidence displayed in the article you can feel comfortable writing that last paragraph in that article is utterly beyond me. Boggling idiocy of the first order.

The thing with the correspondence produced upthread is it's worthy only in the context of Mr Langdell having a truly active trademark, which to all intents and purposes a cursory glance at the breadth of his trademark activities will surely lead to the conclusion that it -is- active. Where it...

Just to clear this up as it's been mentioned a few times. Renaming to Edgy still continued to come with "an ass riding" as Tim's offer meant that -he- would hold the trademark to Edgy. Regardless of whether there'd be any money changing hands, he'd *still* have a hand in a product he had no...

Interesting if slightly threadbare on the facts take on the situation. It seems strange that Andy neglected to mention that it's not so clear cut given there's serious doubt as to whether Mr Langdell *is* in fact legally within his rights. Yes, he's entitled to enforce the trademark legally...