| re: What I MEANT to say was... |
|
Posted by:
 |
rockfenris2005 09:26 am UTC 06/16/08 |
| In reply to: |
re: What I MEANT to say was... - Rob 03:55 pm UTC 06/15/08 |
|
Jim is NO angel. As a matter of fact, he's a RENEGADE angel.
> 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... - Rob 03:55 pm UTC 06/15/08 |
| Next: |
re: What I MEANT to say was... - Pudding 10:09 pm UTC 06/15/08 |
|
| Thread: |
|