| re: What I MEANT to say was... | |
|
Posted by: |
Rob 03:55 pm UTC 06/15/08 |
| In reply to: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - Wilbury 10:03 am UTC 06/15/08 |
| The rules of the board are very simple Wilbury. You have to believe that Meat well and truly shafted Jim in every single detail of the Bat 3 saga and that Jim made absolutely nothing from the deal that was struck, or you are somehow sullying Jim's artistic genius by associating him with TMIL. Any deviation from this mantra will not be tolerated. Even it comes from Jim. > Jesus fucking Christ Ryan, listen to what I'm saying... > > i KNOW that noone here knows what the settlement was. I'm > asking you WHY you think that Meat being allowed to use > Jim's copyright for a one-off was the EXTENT of the > settlement. > > Because I can virtually guarantee that that WASN'T the > extent of the settlement. For Jim's lawyers to agree to > that as a SETTLEMENT, it is OBVIOUS he got something in > return as compensation, otherwise Jim can give his lawyers > a swift kick up the arse and fine some new representation. > MY guess is a whole TRUCK load of money was the said > compensation. > > Does anyone have ANY reason to suspect that this ISN'T the > case? Why are you and Smeghead suggesting that it isn't > the case? > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 02:05 am UTC 06/17/08 |
| Next: | re: What I MEANT to say was... - rockfenris2005 09:26 am UTC 06/16/08 |
| Thread: |
|