Not angry. Just thanking you for admitting you were incredibly wrong and acknowledging that the picture is, in fact, the property of Jimmy and that Ed used it without permission which adds to the long list of unsavory things Ed has done.

That doesn't even make sense. Nice try at an insult though.

Why? They have acts and are in the black.

Dan if you're going to threaten me with posting privledges, better revoke Nick's too.

If he wants a war he will GET A WAR!!!

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Nov 4 2012, 9:13 am

I admit that Jimmy knows more about picture copyright legalilty than I do. If he wants to sue over it and waste his money, go for it.

Did you invest in QE too?

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Nov 4 2012, 9:11 am

What acts do they have? They may be in the black, but that is because you(and other misguided fans) gave them money. What have they done with your money? Where is the return on your investment?

Now you're playing your passive aggressive circle and retreat move again. Youre trash.

My ROE is a longer range thing. It's none of your damn business too. So we're misguided, you know what, lets call a spade a spade......nah, i'll keep it all to myself.

What acts do they have?

None of your fucking business cocksucker.

Sure it is. How much did they get you for?

Why is that any of your business.....someone get your dander up? You come in here with your baseless shit and now that you can't answer you turn around to attack? Get real entitlement boy

I answered. Jimmy knows more about Copyright than I do. I admit it.

You are the one trying to flip the argument around.

how so fucktard? You fired away at WD which was also directed at me and then throwing the barbs at CCP for their QE business (which you certainly don't have one iota of knowledge about)..... who the fuck are you? trying to look all innocent........

World Dreamer fired first. Most members on here fire first, and then complain when someone with a differing viewpoint goes back at them.

The same old story.....

So I guess if Jimmy decides he doesn't want to bother going ahead with a law suit then somehow that makes everything Ed did in this situation ok then? For fucks sake, not to generalise, but you Americans and your obsession with whether someone should or shouldn't be sued and the fact that it somehow makes or breaks whether someone "is" or "isn't" something.

Is it so hard to accept the fact that Jimmy owns that photo and that he has proof of that and if he says Ed took it and used it without permission then that is just how it is. If you think Jimmy is lying, then why don't you go contact Ed to sue Jimmy seeing as you're so fond of that being the answer to prove or disporve something. Surely if you think Jimmy is lying but Ed doesn't sue him, then that is exactly the same as Jimmy not suing Ed in this situation.
And surely you can see how this mounts as just one of many examples of things that work against the character Ed tries to portray himself as. Can you not see why so many people dislike Ed when this sort of shit follows him everywhere he goes? It's not like this was completely fabricated out of thin air (like your claims), this is something that HAPPENED. And if it happened then don't you think there is a real good chance of it not being just an isolated incident? Yeah I know, you won't even answer that.


Seriously, you just talk the biggest amount of shit that you have no idea about.
I love how you press OTD for an answer regarding signed bands, yet when people press you for an answer on something you squirm your way out of it.

Like when you were asked multiple times recently who told you that Ed only wanted to leave Live for a break and then come back and that the other guys started the lawsuit out of spite. WHERE is your proof of that statement? It is simply your opinion, yet you go around passing it off as fact as you can't produce anything that backs that up.



No, you fire first a lot of the time, you waltz in, drop a bomb of a statement which isn't true (see my above post) and then waltz out and let the damage happen. Sitting back all "oh I never did anything wrong" ... we have been over this a thousand times IT'S NOT ABOUT A DIFFERING VIEW POINT. You do not present view points, you present things as if they are fact.
Further more you have an agenda here, having an agenda to upset the apple cart that is Live without Ed is more than just a differing view point. A differing viewpoint is Hoodstock or Wam or DQ all saying they actually enjoy aspects of Ed's music still, or his voice or whatever .. people don't jump all over them.

You play the innocent victim all "but I was just expressing my opinion", when that's not what you're doing, and you fucking know it. Expressing your opinion and trying to pass lies off as fact or having an agenda are completely different things. You're way too involved with pushing Ed and leading a charge to see Live without Ed fail to come across as just an innocent victim of a fan simply stating his view.
Even people like Bri, he is someone I see as just giving his opinion (which I disagree with), but that's all he's doing, and that's fine, you are a completely different story due to your position and your intentions.

This post has been edited by Pokey: Nov 4 2012, 10:03 am