Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

skrulnik wrote:Honestly I feel that PP posted the letter just to incite the fanbase.
It was unnecessary and a hostile act.

No PP just saved themselves a lot of legal headache, and have now moved to support another program, that "iBoger"[?] (which I assume befenits them)

PP arnt evil nor are LWD. This is business, LWD had to protect their TM, PP moved to support a product they feel benefits them (with the automatic name changer to the actual product of the competition is much like advertising for them), this is the way things go.

Interesting stirring up of an internet poo-storm.

On the face of it LWD are only doing what is legal and they think is the right thing to do to defend their Trademark. Yet it generates a lot of negative PR which potentially harms the business.

Before banging off one of these types of letters I think businesses REALLY need to think very carefully whether the perceived potential future harm they think they MAY suffer from TM dilution is really worth the guaranteed short term PR disaster and immediate hit on sales that will result from issuing it.

Just because something CAN be done, doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done! After all, Hoover haven’t suffered any harm at all by seeing their product name become a by-word for vacuum cleaner. You don’t see any actual companies selling fake Hoovers about the place despite the fact they haven’t “vigourously defended their IP” in the courts every time some guy on TV talks about “using the hoover”.

Sure its a hard judgement call and there’s only downside risk to both choices, but that only makes it clear that it is not a decision to take on a whim!

I'm betting there's someone at LWD who is really, really regretting doing this right now...

lonewolfdevel wrote:

Ouze wrote:Ah, I see the president of Lone Wolf has began watching this thread. I'm not sure if you're aware, but this forum largely consists of IP lawyers who also happen to enjoy wargaming. As such, expect to get schooled in the finer points of IP law... hey, Chapterhouse guy, stop snickering and eat your popcorn quietly!

I had no idea about that. Our IP lawyer is also an avid wargamer. Unfortunately, getting schooled by him is incredibly expensive. Getting schooled by you guys will be much easier on the pocketbook, albeit probably significantly more embarrassing as my comparative ignorance shines forth. :-<

I think Ouze was trying to be funny. From what I've seen, most people on here just think they know the law, but it's painfully obvuious from this thread, they just can't grab the basics of what the actual problem is.

Osbad wrote:I'm betting there's someone at LWD who is really, really regretting doing this right now...

For good or ill, there's no regret for having contacted Privateer about this. I've definitely asked myself whether it would have been better to have sent them the formal letter from the lawyer (since they took the delete-it-all option anyways) or if something could have been achieved by a plea for help. Since our attorney seemed to recommend against the latter, that probably would not have been a good option either, but who knows. As I mentioned earlier, it was a lose-lose situation. After weighing the potential impact of both alternatives - PR hit or loss of trademark - the latter loomed as a larger long-term risk to the company. I'm sure some people would have chosen the opposite, were they in the same situation.

In any case, it's been done now, and it did achieve its ultimate goal with exceptional success. The improper use of our trademark across the PP forums is resolved *and* - more importantly - the miniatures community at large is now well aware of the trademark issue. Only time will tell whether it was the right call.

lonewolfdevel wrote:
The way things work with IP is that, as far as I understand it, we have to go through the site owner. Most of this was set forth within the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The site owners have a safe harbor, provided they actively assist anyone who comes to them with an IP issue regarding users of the site. If the site owners refuse to cooperate, then they can become legally culpable.

I'm pretty surprised to hear that your lawyer advised you on this as the DMCA doesn't apply to trademark infringement, only to Copyright matters.

(edit, removed assorted legal nerdery on fair use, abuse of dmca etc).

UltraPrime wrote: I think Ouze was trying to be funny. From what I've seen, most people on here just think they know the law, but it's painfully obvuious from this thread, they just can't grab the basics of what the actual problem is.

Buddy, I wasn't trying, I was being funny.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:The letter( complete with typos and wikipedia references despite being presented as an offical buisness document discussing legal matters) was written by LWD president "Rob" who stated on the PP forums himself (he joined this afternoon) that he "ran it by" his crack legal team before shooting it off in email form to the PP foum administrator...

I'm really getting tired of the repetition and the regular misrepresentation and/or willful ignorance of facts. It reminds of my nephew when he would throw a tantrum back when we was 7 years old....

I'm sorry, but what did you expect? That everyone instantly jumped on your bandwagon against Privateer Press and all these other criminals?

Not at all. Sorry for not being clear, but I was reacting to CT_GAMER in my comment above. He has individually repeated the same thing over and over, progressively introducing new *wrong* information in an attempt to further convince people he's right. The laws are the laws, regardless of whether someone agrees with them.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with how we handled this. I also don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the laws that are in place.

However, I *do* have a problem with someone proclaiming that *we're* making false claims when we're stating how the laws actually work. I also have a problem with someone misrepresenting facts in order to convince people they're right.

Agamemnon2 wrote:When the very basis of Army Builder is the use and dissemination of copyrighted materials? Oh, sure, you the company have nothing to do with that, but without other people breaking copyright by creating data files for the software, you would be out of business faster than a pork butcher in Mecca.

If any of the gaming companies wanted the Army Builder data files for their games shut down, they could do it in a heartbeat:
Step 1. Inform us that we must stop making the data files available through our updates mechanism. We have to comply.
Step 2. Inform the data file authors that they must stop. They have to comply.

Army Builder data files and all other game-specific roster creation tools exist at the mercy of the game publishers. They always have and always will. The reason that Army Builder continues to thrive is because the game publishers recognize the value the product brings to the table. It lowers the barrier to entry for new players. It simplifies preparation so gamers can spend more time actually playing. It encourages experimenting by players that further immerses them in the hobby. It facilitates tournaments and leagues. And, most importantly, it *increases sales*. Yes, that's right, it boosts overall sales, in spite of those people who like to claim otherwise. I already explained this in an earlier post, so I won't repeat those details here.

Agamemnon2 wrote:You're experiencing backlash because of the inherent hypocrisy of your position. This has nothing to do with what's legal and what's not, but a far simpler notion of what's morally right in the minds of common gamer plebs. These aren't legal scholars. They're simple people with simple ideas.

That's what is so ridiculous. There's no hypocrisy here. If Army Builder were not viewed as a value-added tool by the game publishers, there would be no data files. Then there would be no Army Builder. That's why the game publishers keep us around. It's a symbiotic relationship. The only people who view it as parasitic are a vocal group of folks on the internet that keep spouting it as fact with no actual data to back it up. Unfortunately, it seems that you've been convinced to believe that misinformation, too.

Let's look at a simple example of what I'm talking about regarding the sales numbers. Let's assume that you're a retailer at a game store. You have an army book on the shelf for $20. You have figures on the wall that easily run $500 for a starter army. Among your customers using Army Builder, three players in one group don't actually buy the army books for a race they play. That's *way* high compared to the number real retailers have reported to me, but we'll use a high number for this example. James just bought a new army because he was tinkering with it in Army Builder and devised an army list with it that he thinks will be lots of fun to play. You lost $60 on those three books and made $520 on the new army. Which would you prefer?

Now add in the fact that gamers who spend less time on army lists have time to paint more minis (i.e. buy more minis). And it's easier to get new players to plunk down a few hundred dollars to get into the hobby. And veterans who experiment with different troops within Army Builder are going to end up buying more minis to field their "killer" army they came up with. And tournaments/leagues go more smoothly because everyone was a neatly printed list, resulting in fewer gamers being disgruntled due to perceived cheating, thereby enhancing retention and immersion of players. The bottom line is that Army Builder is a *huge* boon to the game publishers. The fact that GW tried to release its own competitor to Army Builder - twice - is testament to the fact that they view it as a huge boon to their sales.

So there's no hypocrisy here. Army Builder helps sell product and the game publishers know it. Dozens of retailers confirm it to us every year at the annual tradeshow. Claiming otherwise is denial of the facts.

@the LDW guy.

Wait a couple of days for the real response. Lawyering up takes time. Overall reaction on the privateer forums may be bad and will have a slight negative on your business. Don't be surprised if in the very near future, you have a much heavier legal reaction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

efarrer wrote:@the LDW guy.

Wait a couple of days for the real response.
The quick response to a C&D by a company is always to hit the problem with a hammer.
Lawyering up takes time. Overall reaction on the privateer forums may be bad and will have a slight negative on your business. Don't be surprised if in the very near future, you have a much heavier legal reaction.

lonewolfdevel wrote:For good or ill, there's no regret for having contacted Privateer about this. I've definitely asked myself whether it would have been better to have sent them the formal letter from the lawyer (since they took the delete-it-all option anyways) or if something could have been achieved by a plea for help. Since our attorney seemed to recommend against the latter, that probably would not have been a good option either, but who knows.

But since you ignored your attorney's advice anyway...

lonewolfdevel (via PP forums) wrote:The message was sent to the forums administrator as a comparatively mild version of the formal letter that the attorneys wanted to use. That letter included little room for fixing things short of mass deletion. I'm sure PP is quite familiar with such letters, since they have no doubt had to send them from time to time...

...Perhaps we should have sent the formal letter from the attorneys. We chose not to. Either way, the situation is what it is. There has been an escalating problem on these forums with the trademark "Army Builder" being used in reference to other tools, and it needed to be addressed. The "education" of users in this regard has very visibly begun through this thread. The drastic actions that PP has announced are regrettable and unnecessary, but it is ultimately their call on how they choose to resolve the matter.

I can't help thinking that 'a plea for help' or rather a request for assistance would have at least left you the C&D option later even if it had achieved nothing.

Given your symbiotic (parasitic?) relationship with PP and other similar companies your choice of action is perplexing. You made this a no win situation.

Similarly perplexing is this:

Forward Kommander Website wrote:Note! This is not an "Army Builder". This application in which you can build armies can not be called "Army Builder", because a company called Lone Wolf owns the trademark on "Army Builder".

This is nothing more than a free advert for your product. How long is 'Freek Punt' expected to keep this free advert posted on his site for his totally unrelated army creator while you hold the threat of legal action over him?

lonewolfdevel wrote:The fact that GW tried to release its own competitor to Army Builder - twice - is testament to the fact that they view it as a huge boon to their sales

I think it only proves that GWS is better at gouging for plastic army men then they are at strategy, as there is nothing stopping them from releasing their own version while simultaneously shutting you down.

lonewolfdevel wrote:And, most importantly, it *increases sales*.

You know who else made that argument?

That being said, Army Builder does look like a great piece of software, and I'd love to buy a licensed copy, rather than live at the whim of the companies your product enmeshes.

Ouze wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:The fact that GW tried to release its own competitor to Army Builder - twice - is testament to the fact that they view it as a huge boon to their sales

I think it only proves that GWS is better at gouging for plastic army men then they are at strategy, as there is nothing stopping them from releasing their own version while simultaneously shutting you down.

lonewolfdevel wrote:And, most importantly, it *increases sales*.

You know who else made that argument?

That being said, Army Builder does look like a great piece of software, and I'd love to buy a licensed copy, rather than live at the whim of the companies your product enmeshes.

And even people with Army Builder tend to own the books, as Army Builder files tend to be written in a way so as not to tell the whole picture. As in an important rule might be referenced as "see page 32 of the codex". It allows theory hammer, but it subtlety encourages codex purchase to get the complete picture.

lonewolfdevel wrote:
Now add in the fact that gamers who spend less time on army lists have time to paint more minis (i.e. buy more minis). And it's easier to get new players to plunk down a few hundred dollars to get into the hobby. And veterans who experiment with different troops within Army Builder are going to end up buying more minis to field their "killer" army they came up with. And tournaments/leagues go more smoothly because everyone was a neatly printed list, resulting in fewer gamers being disgruntled due to perceived cheating, thereby enhancing retention and immersion of players. The bottom line is that Army Builder is a *huge* boon to the game publishers. The fact that GW tried to release its own competitor to Army Builder - twice - is testament to the fact that they view it as a huge boon to their sales.

Ok, I have to admit that I have done this. The last full blown 40K army that I built from ground up was designed totally on Army Builder before I bought the first miniature (though, I had already bought the Codex by that time, as well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I really don't understand the nerd-rage going on here.

This was a business decision that has ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT ON ANY OF YOUR LIVES!

Why do some of you care so much about this?

Use AB or not. It's your choice. This is a matter that is specifically between Lone Wolf and Privateer Press. I honestly have to question why PP felt the need to publicize the issue...I'm not sure what real benefit has been derived.

The only result is a bunch of people starting a poo-throwing competition out of what should have been a business dialogue.

And, no, it doesn't matter who is "wrong" or "right" here.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

Gornall wrote:They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

In any C&D situation that I'm aware of, the party issuing the C&D asks for the maximum. Then discussions ensue, and a compromise is reached, unless the recipient is doing something seriously egregious (like using your trademark in the name of their own product). Based on communications with PP on Friday, I thought we'd be doing that today (Monday). PP opted otherwise before any discussions were held.

so... you asked for the maximum and they responded in kind as well as publishing their correspondence with you. what did you expect? that you could lay down "the law" (in my best stallone judge dredd voice) and people would just smile? you could have defended your trademark against this "threat" by opening discussions first but you instead chose the GW hammer approach; now you'll have to pay the PR consequences as the wargaming community is niche and tight knit.

Ouze wrote:

UltraPrime wrote: I think Ouze was trying to be funny. From what I've seen, most people on here just think they know the law, but it's painfully obvuious from this thread, they just can't grab the basics of what the actual problem is.

Buddy, I wasn't trying, I was being funny.

Actually, Ouze, I know two active members on this forum who are lawyers and specialize in IP law, and at least another three members who are lawyers in other areas. They just don't generally post because they end up getting people from the wikipedia school of law arguing with them for page after page, and give up. They know what's what, they just rarely join in any more.

lonewolfdevel wrote:As I mentioned earlier, it was a lose-lose situation. After weighing the potential impact of both alternatives - PR hit or loss of trademark - the latter loomed as a larger long-term risk to the company. I'm sure some people would have chosen the opposite, were they in the same situation.

In any case, it's been done now, and it did achieve its ultimate goal with exceptional success. The improper use of our trademark across the PP forums is resolved *and* - more importantly - the miniatures community at large is now well aware of the trademark issue. Only time will tell whether it was the right call.

I don't think it was a 2-choice situation. There's almost always a 3rd. It got deleted by PP when they nixed the thread, but someone on their forums mentioned that you could have approached them in a different way. Your companies are symbiotic, right? Your product uses their unit's stats and makes army lists out of them. You could have approached them in a different way, despite what the lawyers say.

We're all sensitive to this right now after GW's C&D actions. Were they legally sound? Apparently, some attorneys thought so (although larger companies, like Hasbro, have not seen fit to go after things like boardgamegeek... so even that is a matter of opinion). Was it reasonable? Most rational people did not think so.

I love your product, but I think you went about this the wrong way. Rather than defending yourself on every possible public forum, I would rather see a public apology for the way you handled the situation. PP were well within their rights to do what they did- you send them a letter telling them to stop all references to AB by their members in 72 hours! Even if you followed it up by a phone conversation saying that they did not adhere to the timeline, you were asking for it by sending them that letter. It would have been much better from a human relations standpoint to approach them informally about it first... again, despite what the lawyers say. You depend on them, they also benefit somewhat from you... why not ask first?

By the way, I have been a fan of army builder since it first came out, and I always will be from what I can tell . I just think this was a bad misstep and you should stop defending it on the basis of the legal justification (which GW has been doing as well) and approach it more from just your everyday human's perspective.

lonewolfdevel wrote:In any case, it's been done now, and it did achieve its ultimate goal with exceptional success. The improper use of our trademark across the PP forums is resolved *and* - more importantly - the miniatures community at large is now well aware of the trademark issue. Only time will tell whether it was the right call.

well, you've lost at least one customer here with this heavy handed approach. i used to praise your product and am the reason two new 40k players bought it in my local gaming group after i moved here and organized the club; i'll be sure to not speak of your trademark in the future.

Valhallan42nd wrote:
And even people with Army Builder tend to own the books, as Army Builder files tend to be written in a way so as not to tell the whole picture. As in an important rule might be referenced as "see page 32 of the codex". It allows theory hammer, but it subtlety encourages codex purchase to get the complete picture.

not exactly true. i've known plenty of people in the past that have army builder and referenced pirated copies of codices when they occasionally needed to, especially if they were new to the hobby or starting out a new army. gamers in general are stingy and many (not all though) will pirate something if they can. you would think that people wouldn't pirate iphone games since they cost $1 but recent reports from developers say that 80-90% of leaderboard entries are from pirated copies.

Saldiven wrote:
(snip)
This was a business decision that has ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT ON ANY OF YOUR LIVES!

Judging by the number of people who have posted they will no longer buy GWS products because of the unneccesarily heavy hand they wield towards their users, I'd say that there is ample evidence that a company's unseemly corporate behavior does affect their spending habits, if not their "lives". I have limited funds and time to dedicate to my hobby, and I intend to insure they are funneled to a company that doesn't act like a jerk. Not that I'm saying either company is like GWS in this case, just pointing out that it's untrue to say this is not relevant to these fora and users.

Saldiven wrote:Why do some of you care so much about this?

Clearly, you also feel strongly about this, as you felt compelled join the fray, 6 pages in. As for me personally - I don't! I never even heard of AB before this post. I'm at work for another 20 minutes, and it's either post about this, or... work.

Saldiven wrote:This is a matter that is specifically between Lone Wolf and Privateer Press.

Once PP posted it into the public domain, it no longer was so.

Saldiven wrote: I honestly have to question why PP felt the need to publicize the issue...I'm not sure what real benefit has been derived.

The only result is a bunch of people starting a poo-throwing competition out of what should have been a business dialogue.

Now, we're on the same page! It was petty and unprofessional.

Saldiven wrote:And, no, it doesn't matter who is "wrong" or "right" here.

And, again we disagree. I won't help fund a company that repeatedly acts petty or unprofessional.

Many believe this was unjustified because they consider this a hobby. LWD believe it to be justified because they consider it a business and their livelihood. Just a matter of perspective. I think pursuing a gentleman's agreement first would have had a more positive and longer lasting outcome. Honor amongst thieves, wink wink. But, I don't know copyright law, so that is neither here nor there I suppose.

warboss wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:In any case, it's been done now, and it did achieve its ultimate goal with exceptional success. The improper use of our trademark across the PP forums is resolved *and* - more importantly - the miniatures community at large is now well aware of the trademark issue. Only time will tell whether it was the right call.

well, you've lost at least one customer here with this heavy handed approach. i used to praise your product and am the reason two new 40k players bought it in my local gaming group after i moved here and organized the club; i'll be sure to not speak of your trademark in the future.

Valhallan42nd wrote:
And even people with Army Builder tend to own the books, as Army Builder files tend to be written in a way so as not to tell the whole picture. As in an important rule might be referenced as "see page 32 of the codex". It allows theory hammer, but it subtlety encourages codex purchase to get the complete picture.

not exactly true. i've known plenty of people in the past that have army builder and referenced pirated copies of codices when they occasionally needed to, especially if they were new to the hobby or starting out a new army. gamers in general are stingy and many (not all though) will pirate something if they can. you would think that people wouldn't pirate iphone games since they cost $1 but recent reports from developers say that 80-90% of leaderboard entries are from pirated copies.

"Heavy handed"? Wow.
You must think a child getting spanked is murder!

LWD didn't send a C&D to Privateer. They sent a private letter, in layman's speak to the moderators of the forums, asking for pro-active enforcement on a specific issue.

Privateer responded by posting the letter and replacing "army builder" in their word filter.
And as for the piracy issue?
That's not LWD's problem. It's GW's. That they haven't found a way to go after piracy(on codexes? really, people--you can't drop the cash to have a decently bound hard copy book in your possession? You'd rather have a print-out bound up in a Trapper Keeper? FFS.) still surprises me.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:When the very basis of Army Builder is the use and dissemination of copyrighted materials? Oh, sure, you the company have nothing to do with that, but without other people breaking copyright by creating data files for the software, you would be out of business faster than a pork butcher in Mecca.

If any of the gaming companies wanted the Army Builder data files for their games shut down, they could do it in a heartbeat:
Step 1. Inform us that we must stop making the data files available through our updates mechanism. We have to comply.
Step 2. Inform the data file authors that they must stop. They have to comply.

Army Builder data files and all other game-specific roster creation tools exist at the mercy of the game publishers. They always have and always will.

Whether or not you've been called upon to cease your morally questionable actions doesn't make them any less questionable or exonerate Lone Wolf in the slightest, it just makes those publishers lazy. That said publishers have grounds to call for aspects of your racket to be shut down is reason enough to consider said business to be odious, doubly so in the minds of the aforementioned simpletons who make up the vast majority of your most fervent "adversaries".

At any rate, all this is simply the outrage du jour, within 2 weeks few people will even remember their fanatical declarations of hatred and the majority will happily go back to being Army Builder (TM) customers, deciding that selling out all that high-minded idealism is a small price to pay to avoid the tedium of counting up army lists on a piece of paper. I have no dog in this hunt, I'd never pay for a product like Army Builder, its legal status being murky or not, simply because I already have a spreadsheet program, a spiral-bound notebook and a damn fine calculator at my disposal, and anyone who thinks less of me because of that decision can go suck a tailpipe.

Kanluwen wrote:"Heavy handed"? Wow.
1) You must think a child getting spanked is murder!

2) LWD didn't send a C&D to Privateer. They sent a private letter, in layman's speak to the moderators of the forums, asking for pro-active enforcement on a specific issue.
Privateer responded by posting the letter and replacing "army builder" in their word filter.

3)And as for the piracy issue?
That's not LWD's problem. It's GW's.

1) nope, i advocate spanking children and don't see normal spanking as abuse.

2) as for LWD, i don't see them "asking" for anything, only demanding something within a time table. their letter (you are correct, it's not labelled as a C&D by them but privateer but effectively is the same as one) contains a whole of of "need", "must", and "necessary"; that's not asking. if they had simply opened a dialog first with privateer i don't think any of this would have happened. they used the stick and then offered the carrot only when the PR backlash hit them.

3) as for the piracy, i was just commenting on the other poster's comment that the majority people who use army builder have the codices (which is why i quoted him and didn't reference LWD for that part of the post). my experience in a large 3rd edition gaming group was the opposite (and that was during the infancy of piracy when it took 12-24 hours to download a codex with your 56k modem). lol, maybe my old local gamers were particularly cheap!

LWD referred to their own letter as a C&D in this very thread...

They sent a C&D to Forward Kommander, and a letter to Privateer.

Page 5...

lonewolfdevel wrote:

Gornall wrote:They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

In any C&D situation that I'm aware of, the party issuing the C&D asks for the maximum. Then discussions ensue, and a compromise is reached, unless the recipient is doing something seriously egregious (like using your trademark in the name of their own product). Based on communications with PP on Friday, I thought we'd be doing that today (Monday). PP opted otherwise before any discussions were held.

And again, it seemed(from LWD's statements here) that the letter was sent first, got told off and then LWD prepped the C&D on Monday--then Privateer went and acted like a bunch of spoiled brats.

LWD clearly sent the C&D on Friday, and PP took this action on Monday...

lonewolfdevel wrote:

Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

Exactly. They contacted us within 24 hours (on Friday). They asked if everything needed to fixed within 72 hours and there were told explicitly "no". They were also told explicitly that the timetable was not important, provided we begin working something out that would serve well for the long-term. Based on that, I expected discussions on the next business day (Monday) - not the actions they chose.

Personally, I DO see the irony in the letter.
Like LWD says, though... all it takes is a letter saying to stop & they will. So, I see no hypocrisy.

Agamemnon2 wrote:I'd never pay for a product like Army Builder, its legal status being murky or not, simply because I already have a spreadsheet program, a spiral-bound notebook and a damn fine calculator at my disposal, and anyone who thinks less of me because of that decision can go suck a tailpipe.

Don't worry, Aggie.

THAT isn't why people think less of you.
; )

Eric

That's the problem with emotional responses.

They don't convince anyone of anything except your already die-hard supporters.

MagickalMemories wrote:Don't worry, Aggie.

THAT isn't why people think less of you.
; )

Haw haw haw, most droll. The addition of the smiley face was a nice touch, turning an otherwise drab and commonplace insult into spitting at my face. Thank you oh so very much, good sirs, for your continuing camaraderie and fellowship.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!!


(sorry, I'm bored at work)