>And Doug has answered you repeatedly about the scope of the license, but you imply that he's either lying, uninformed, or unwilling to talk about it.
i have made no such implication and your efforts to smear me with continued trolling only make you look the fool. clearl;y you have nothing to add to this thread except to tell me im psychotic or obsessed (which, if even remotely true wouldntbe your concern or business). i have rpeatedly told you to ignore me and yet here you are again with the same tired old rubbish making more of a nuisance of yourself than i ever could. you coudl have chosen to say something insifghtful and relevant to the subject but no you want to misrepresent me, time and again. and to respond to your latest attempt at a cowardly slur i will tell you that doug never spoke with authority about the license and so a definitive answer has not been given - none of which addresses the point itself which im not going to belabour.
Here is what doug said: "There's a possibility that the TCG has a slightly different license than the RPG."
OK? good, moving on...
>The game also used the term "tharni" and later retracted it because it was outside the scope.
now you begin to orbit the point i'm making. if decipher had to retract that it shows that TE are concerend with every detail of their license and copyright regardless how small. logically then one woudl assume that if decipher cant use the word tharni in small doses in an rpg, they surely couldnt get away with ulairi over and over again, emblazoned on a variety of ccg cards which have a far greater profile. thus to my mind the question still remains, perhaps you would like to have a go at answering. No? thought not.
>Apparently it slipped by the license review process, and was later caught. This is likely the case with this term.
Ulairi has been used since the tcg first came out as nazgul were in the first set - and it isnt easily missed.
>Asking you to contribute meaningfully to a message forum, or to provide a point to your embittered rants is trolling? That is certainly a new definition of the term.
you obviously are unaware of your own hypocrisy and the meaning of the term trolling. Let me explain: i started a thread in a forum for the lotr rpg about the lotr rpg, you have chosen to respond with messages telling me how mad i am and contributing nothing to the thread. that is trolling; its that simple. if you dont like the thread, fine dont read it - its easy to do, just scroll on by, but since the threaed pertains to the game it is relevant and you im afraid have absolutely no credible argument to tell me i am trolling when you are in fact guilty of that more than i.
and if you find my posts so 'embittered' and ranting, by all means avoid them. can you not even do that? No, you continually choose to get your knickers in a twist over somethign you could easily avoid. you are obviously the kind of person who complains about terrible tv shows, but refuses to switch them off instead of watching them. that is screwy logic.
this isnt a rant, you cannot provide a single example of this threaed being nothing more than a rant, and you have nothing to provide that pertains to the thread, a thread i have expolained and justified. if its not to your satisfaction, tough - dont read it. how many times would you like me to say that? once should be enough, but clearly it isnt.
>Why do you come here?
thats my choice and my business, if my irrational thought processes are that bothersome you can always not read them.
>What do you want from Decipher, or any of the folk on this board?
not asking stupid questions designed to provoke would be a start but i doubt it will happen.
>You say you don't care what the people of rpg.net think of
you, yet you go back again and again, despite being banned. Why?
why do you think? i want to post a message, its that simple! there is no evil genius at work tryng to plot his revenge against the master spy! sory to disappoint you.
if people dont like what i have to say then they can tell me why or they can ignore me, its their choice and i dont care which so long as they arent stupid about it. you are being stupid about it.
>And in case you're wondering, I will continue to question your motives and call you on your trollish behavior as long as you frequent communities I enjoy being a part of, communities you have been disciplined in, warned to behave in, and banned repeatedly from.
well youre going to be wasting your time then, hope you enjoy continually posting the same stupid pointless messages and turning relevant discussions you otherwise have no interest in into battles. good thinking. still its your choice.
>So, I will throw it back at you. If you don't like the criticism I level at your incoherent, badly-spelled, vitriolic and misguided stalking of Decipher and a RPG I enjoy, then don't read it.
your logic is beyond coherency. turning my argument around doesnt actually work, it just falls flat on its face.
>Well, if you are not sure, then it must be a bad idea.
it is indeed a bad idea. dilutiong middle earth to sell more product will do nothing but harm the game's credibility and any potential longevity it might have. including out of canon elements because of the limits of the license is likewise a foolish idea.
>Perhaps you should do so. Midnight is very nice, from what I hear. You might find it "preferrabel."
why would i want to buy a fantasy game based on tolkien's work if it clearly isnt. where is the logic there?
>A problem for who? You?
correct, as well as others i suspect as it is likely that if one person thinks a certain way about something there will be others, and its not as if i am the only person disappointed with this game. but i never claimed i was speakng for anyone else.
> Doug Burke While your support is greatly appreciated, Jason, I wouldn't waste your breath. Martin has been given numerous chances to mend his behavior on multiple message boards and shows no sign of even the slightest change. The more you argue with him, the more determined he becomes. Trust me, though, the situation will be handled.
sigh, and here is the perversity of it: doug has just said what i have been saying all along: if you dont like what i have to say - ignore it!
