One more, I can’t help it. I was responding to your comment about my case.
Stop trying to attack strawmen arguments no one is making because your actual case is so weak.
I would have thought it should have been clear I was using “case” as a synonym for “argument” and not implying you were actually a lawyer actively defending Blizzard in this lawsuit between forum posts. I’m sorry I wasn’t more explicit however. I’ll do better in the future.
1 Like
I’ll give you a like for that promise. Now this really was my last post, have a good day 
1 Like
criticizes punctuation, doesn’t know how contractions work
Classic bearhands
1 Like
‘Frat Boy’ behaviour explains their bias when it comes to Horde and Alliance.
3 Likes
That’s a really high IQ take. I’m glad someone has finally mentioned this.
I don’t get why people assume this, because it isn’t true at all. More often than not, notably within much more serious criminal trials, the State often holds no real cards at all but BLUFFS using the maximum sentencing that could possibly come down on the Defendant as a means to coerce a plea bargain for a fraction of that.
Just because the State took a keen interest in a case has absolutely no bearing on how effectively they’ve accumulated evidence, vetted that evidence, and have prepared for trial. As I said before, this opening salvo by the State is incredibly weak in how it manages to regurgitate verbatim recitations of unlawful behavior across 20+ pages, but only filled two paragraphs with actual facts approaching verifiable.
Half of the document is a recitation of the causes of action, mostly repeating itself, and mostly just saying:
“Murder is when you kill someone all angry-like.”
“Defendants killed someone all angry-like.”
“Defendants that LIKE killing someone all angry-like get special damages.”
“Defendants killed someone all angry-like and LIKED IT.”
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
I don’t know what California calls a 12(b)(6) but phew… this is damn close.
Hey man, he’s a business owner, and he’s been sued, he KNOWS the law.
2 Likes
I know.
I feel better now knowing Blizzard aren’t Alliance supports.
Lol.
1 Like
It also explains why they don’t have the personnel to combat bots. They’re all too busy “cubing.”
3 Likes
Too busy, "in which male employees “drink copious amounts of alcohol as they crawl their way through various cubicles in the office”.
Lol
1 Like
I’m going to laugh if this was some office party, after-hours, in which participation was voluntary, participants eagerly participated, and only after the fact did some people come to regret singing that loudly to that song while 5 drinks deep…
2 Likes
This whole incident reminds me of game of thrones scene were the dwarf is in trial, that’s pretty much Blizzard right now.
I didn’t watch GOT, I saw clips of it.
What? That makes 0 sense. Might try proof reading your posts.
You might try sounding out the words.
Really? Is Blizzard requesting trial by combat or something?
2 Likes
That’s so dumb. The whole point of a court system is to see what’s what.
Anyone can allege anything. You’re an actually terrible person.
2 Likes
lol you’re cute.
what do you think the conviction rate is in the US?
I know.
You seemed to be confused with a legal judgement and an opinion.
1 Like