LFL v SDS

[PeteVenkman]

After reading everything here and alot of the arguements being made everyone seems to be forgetting one painfully obvious thing: He was infirnging on a protected copyright. Whether he had custom molds or original ones is kinda moot here, as are his business practices. It's the danger that we all face in this community if you are going to sell replicas without a licence.

If it was my intellectual property being ripped off I'd nail the person to the wall, and so would most people here. I mean look at how upset people get at re-casters. So whether he thinks he has some loophole or defence to save face is totally beside the point. He broke the law and got caught. Looking for escape pods now is pointless. And trying to keep his business in the UK to avoid problems is still breaking copyright law. If you didn't create it and it isn't public domain then it isn't yours to profit on and you run the chance of being screwed. If you get caught you have to face the facts and deal with it.

So fair warning to any of us here that sells with out a licence, it could be you next, and you know it, so why all the crying and surprise? Again, it's the chance we all take in this hobby. If you get caught, most likely, you're gonna get it.

 

[exoray]

If what some has been said is true, it appears that there is a time when the case will shift to the UK court and that defense is given the oppurtunity to proclaim why either the charges or monetary damages should not be applied.

The defense gets to argue the amounts of penalty and validity based on UK standards (they are generally lower then US amounts) as for the merits of the case and issues surrounding the case that created the debt/judgement the defense does not get to argue those...

This belief that AA's UK sovereignty is going to create a loophole of imunity to IP violations (both trademark and copyright) with a "friendly" country who has a long history of reciprocal enforcement policies, in todays world market is just being blind...

That's ex parte So that means you know just one side of the story then?

Actually that would generally mean the continued filing of proceedings by LFL that are filed in absence of the defense now that AA defaulted, in a type of sneak attack where the defense doesn't get notified... It's granted in situations like this were there is the probability that if notified the defense might try and "hide" things...

These could be supeonas for finacial records, like Paypal and his bank accounts to get a better idea of sales... Or the freezing of finacial accounts, who really knows the list could go on and on with only the one side involved knowing what it's all about...

 

[SFPROPS]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Mar 10 2006, 09:20 AM
As far as the England is concerned, the 1956 Copyright Act (the act in place at the time of ANH) suggests that AA would own the copyright in the UK so long as they could be considered "works of artistic craftsmanship" with original expression not necessarily thought.

So again I reiterate. I do not believe anyone here can confidently say how this is going to pan out as there are still just too many unknowns.

THE SCULPTS would be considered as such. Not debating that. That's a facet of copyright law just about EVERYWHERE, including the US. The fact that his "work of artistic craftsmanship" was based directly on a derivative work is what makes his right to his sculpt (assuming he did anything other than vac-form over someone else's bucks) worth little, and I STILL not seen any law which states that you own the copyright to the underlying IP of a derivative work just because you render it in three dimensions. Copying McQuarrie's designs is not an "original expression". You can have a right to your own derivative artistic work product as per copyright law, but you have no legal right to benefit financially from it unless the owner of the underlying intellectual property gives you permission. In other words, LFL has no right to demand AA turn over something he wasn't contracted to give them (since it's his "work of artistic craftsmanship"..but there's a loophole here as well), but he has no legal right or license to use LFL's intellectual property for financial gain without their permission.

Again - it's clear that the ST design was on paper before AA ever was hired and the work product created to make the helmet was a work derivative of the original design. It doesn't matter a hill of beans if Andrew can keep his sculpt/molds, etc. (what the law you quoted allows) because he can't use them to benefit financially without license. In fact, if LFL can show he's using the materials he owns in order to infringe on their copyright and unfairly compete, they can force him legally to turn over any "work of artistic craftsmanship" which meets that criteria. It's what keeps people from being allowed to design their own Mickey Mouse sculptures and sell them for a profit without license from Disney.

I think that the problem is that A LOT of people, including Ainsworth simply do not understand copyright law. I'm not a lawyer (disclaimer), but everyone I've asked and all the experience I have with copyright as a producer of "works of artistic craftsmanship" over the years tells me everyone who's made a claim that Ainsworth has some right of reproduction couldn't be more wrong. If there's a law which proves me wrong (regarding items made from derivative works), I'd be glad to be proved wrong.

Still looking for that "loophole"....

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Mar 10 2006, 09:20 AM
As far as the England is concerned, the 1956 Copyright Act (the act in place at the time of ANH) suggests that AA would own the copyright in the UK so long as they could be considered "works of artistic craftsmanship" with original expression not necessarily thought.

I believe SFprops opinion above is much more inline with the way the law is, I have yet to read or even see the UK 1956 Copyright Act with all revisions as of 1976 (and doubt anyone here has) so I wouldn't place much on it at this point...

As I have said before there is much more to this law then the small part that is selectively being quoted because it fits the argument... And it ALL revolves around the lack of a contract, AA being the sculpter of the 3D form, and any other clause(s) included in the law like being employed... One important part of the 1956 UK Copyright Act (that is suggested above) in regards to being an 'artistic work' also includes a clause that it much be 'original' as well as an 'artistic work' to be granted copyright, not a derivative work...

It's probable that AA was under contract, even verbal (regardless of what he states or remembers) and it's also very proabable that he didn't create the 3D rendering entirely by himself or at all... It could also be speculated that AA took an existing sculpt(s) provided to him and reworked or tweaked it to be a functional and working vac forming buck(s) after the failed attempts (or lack of) but others, as LFL suggest (or at least hints towards) in the complaint...

One thing you will notice is that AA never claimed ownership or rights to make the items or even offering any rebuttal to any of LFL claims, he just suggested that the courts didn't have jurisdiction... That is an important issue IMO and one the UK courts will look at if AA decides to all the sudden try and claim ownership of the trooper likeness, the imperial cog and the right to sell and market both...

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Guys, weÂ’re going round and round in circles on this. Exoray, the English 1956 Copyright act states that the work only needs to be original original in expression, not necessarily in thought so can only presume that AAÂ’s lawyers believe they can base a case around this given the 2D drawing from McQuarrie and the 3D visualisions from Ainsworth (though clearly similar) do have significant differences. In addition the 1956 copy act says that ownership remains with the sculptor unless agreed in writing, therefore LFL would need to prove that either he didnÂ’t sculpt it or they did have written agreement.

As to SFProps point about his right to duplicate. Its a valid point - I dont know, I too am not a lawyer.

I agree all of this may well be academic if the UK Courts merely fulfil on the USÂ’s default judgement. However I think most people here will think that a shame since the ONLY way weÂ’re going to ever know the real background to this is if LFL commences action against AA in the UK.

This will probably never happen since LFL may not need to go this route, and clearly the easiest solution for them would be to rely on US law rather than the UK law they were happy to work under when they were a guest of this country when they made the films in the first place. As a side issue I think some British people may be slightly offended when people use terms like “loophole” when referring to English law. Like I’ve said before, this is the law of the County AA resides in, where the helmets are made, where the movies were made and where Lucas received considerable benefits for their production. One could argue that LFL is actually using a US loophole in order to escape the real jurisdictional issues of this case

Cheers

Jez

ps again I find it slightly hypocritical that "_Lee_" is called a "troll" for posting some form of balancing argument in a similar but opposite vein to a number of anti-AA comments which have been posted here. Lets have some balance please.

 

[_Lee_]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Mar 11 2006, 10:38 AM


ps again I find it slightly hypocritical that "_Lee_" is called a "troll" for posting some form of balancing argument in a similar but opposite vein to a number of anti-AA comments which have been posted here. Lets have some balance please.

[snapback]1203510[/snapback]​

Thankyou Jez

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Mar 10 2006, 11:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Mar 10 2006, 11:14 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM
Mike what truth. That AA couldn't try and use some loophole in UK law to try and make money off helmets he was hired to cast for LFL. A concept that he didn't even create? Or that he some how had the copyright for the imperial cog? Its true the UK courts will probably uphold the ruling and AA will be financially ruined.  So why not use this great defense that AA claimed about havng the legal right to make the helmets. At this point he would have had nothing to lose either way he is ruined financially.

[snapback]1203017[/snapback]​

Thank you for your OPINIONS once again Ben.

1) You do not and could not in any way know that AA "couldn't use some loophole in UK law".

2) You do not know what level of conceptulization and creation was considered valid nor what the contractural obligations were back in the mid-'70s.

3) And you cannot possibly know if AA's UK legal people will or will not use this "great defense" when things shift to the UK.

4) And...you do not know he is "ruined financially" for sure because it is dependant on the above points.

That is the truth.

[snapback]1203027[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike as Flynn stated he will not get an opportunity to present a defense. He will only be able to answer to the penaltys. You were the one earlier who made the statement that he would probably be in financial ruin. So I was using your own logic to make the point of why not present the defense when he had the chance. So Mike I am waiting to see how you spin this once the UK court backs the LFL verdict. Since you can seem to accept the no default loss.

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Mar 11 2006, 04:38 AM
ps again I find it slightly hypocritical that "_Lee_" is called a "troll" for posting some form of balancing argument in a similar but opposite vein to a number of anti-AA comments which have been posted here. Lets have some balance please.

[snapback]1203510[/snapback]​

Jez, you would. Somehow, when I read the title of this thread, it doesn't come accross as "post inflamatory snipes about non-related issues". I see the title as "LFL v SDS"... though I have been wrong in the past. :rolleyes

I guess technically AA does have something to do with MR, as AA sold MR's copyrighted designs as his own... If you REALLY want to go there...

As I said to "_lee_" before the edit, if you wish to stir up crap about non-related issues, create a new thread and stop hijacking this one. That's not what this thread is about.

b. No trolling (making posts with the intent to stir up trouble to incite disruption) is allowed at the RPF. Posts of this nature will be edited by a Staff member and threads locked and moved if this occurs.

Anything to draw attention from AA, eh Jez? :rolleyes

 

[_Lee_]

Originally posted by Gytheran+Mar 11 2006, 02:47 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gytheran @ Mar 11 2006, 02:47 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-BingoBongo275

@Mar 11 2006, 04:38 AM
ps again I find it slightly hypocritical that "_Lee_" is called a "troll" for posting some form of balancing argument in a similar but opposite vein to a number of anti-AA comments which have been posted here. Lets have some balance please.

[snapback]1203510[/snapback]​

Jez, you would. Somehow, when I read the title of this thread, it doesn't come accross as "post inflamatory snipes about non-related issues". I see the title as "LFL v SDS"... though I have been wrong in the past. :rolleyes

I guess technically AA does have something to do with MR, as AA sold MR's copyrighted designs as his own... If you REALLY want to go there...

As I said to "_lee_" before the edit, if you wish to stir up crap about non-related issues, create a new thread and stop hijacking this one. That's not what this thread is about.

b. No trolling (making posts with the intent to stir up trouble to incite disruption) is allowed at the RPF. Posts of this nature will be edited by a Staff member and threads locked and moved if this occurs.

Anything to draw attention from AA, eh Jez? :rolleyes

[snapback]1203565[/snapback]​

[/b]

Firslty,i did not mention any names with my coment,and what i said was a point of view.I merely stated that IMO another company had falsely led their customers and were apparently guilty of doing what you suggest AA has done.You dont have to agree with me,but calling me what you did is in itself trying to incite trouble.

I did not and will not attempt to stir up trouble or incite disruption here.I posted a reasonable enough comment about what could happen in the future after this court case,and as usual you step in with your abusive or sarcastic comments.As i said to you yesterday,you seem to have trouble accepting different opinions.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Mar 11 2006, 09:26 AM
Mike as Flynn stated he will not get an opportunity to present a defense. He will only be able to answer to the penaltys. You were the one earlier who made the statement that he would probably be in financial ruin. So I was using your own logic to make the point of why not present the defense when he had the chance. So Mike I am waiting to see how you spin this once the UK court backs the LFL verdict. Since you can seem to accept the no default loss.

[snapback]1203555[/snapback]​

And as Flynn stated, he's not a lawyer. Someone familiar with some UK law at the RPB and some others here have said that actually there will be ways to defend his position against the USA decision to either have the charges dropped or monetary reduction to the decision. I believe, but don't recall exactly what he said, that at that point AA's legal team can show that in the UK AA has ownership of the rights and thereby the action in the USA does not hold in carrying through the fines. The UK court, again as I'm understanding all this, might agree that in the UK AA does own those right but still can't sell in the USA and has done so...so still might likely penalize him. However, if at that time the court agrees with the defense evidence of his provenance to lower or alter the USA court claims then AA would have recourse in the UK to possible take action. This is what I am gathering from reading what others are posting.

But of course this is all wild speculation. None of us are involved in the case nor know the intricacies of law, let alone UK law.

I notice, AGAIN, you avoided my question about why didn't LFL pursue this in the UK to prove their position in the ST derivitive works process. Why is that Ben? Funny how you keep harping on me about what I've clearly said is my opinion and how there is always something we don't understand, and yet you constantly avoid discussing a major point from the start. If LFL is that solid in it's case against AA about the design, production, and contract of the ST helmet (and others)...why wasn't that done in the UK where LFL does have EU legal presense and why did they not just destroy him in his home field instead of going through a lower CA court? Then there would be no question that LFL performed within contractual law in hiring AA, that they did originate the 3D molding process, that AA didn't have the molds in his possession, etc. But the current case doesn't defend LFL anymore than it did AA.

And no spin if the UK does award damages. The only one spinning is you, I've accepted and explained why IMO a default occurred as have others. If the UK awards whatever damages and nothing more comes out, that's the end of the game and nothing still is proven for either AA and his claims or LFL and their claims. And we're left sitting with no answers to all the questions.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Gytheran@Mar 11 2006, 09:47 AM
Anything to draw attention from AA, eh Jez?  :rolleyes

[snapback]1203565[/snapback]​

Well there was an uncalled for shot from the black kettle.

And Lee has a point, a good one, I never saw you guys take Rubies to task for their "from the molds" Vader or Clone helmets. I never saw you guys trash to the nth degree Don Post for their works. Funny how none of the naysayers went lynch mob over licensed companies for their clearly false claims, bad molds, etc. but then again they weren't directly competing in the fan market were they?

I wonder how this would have all begun had LFL licensed AA in his current situation and supported all his claims. I would bet there wouldn't be half of the "self interest" negative comments made as we've seen. For every one anti-AA person who honestly doesn't like his work, there are probably a dozen who have pesronal agendas or friends who do.

 

[JRX]

Does anybody know how long AA will still be in business as I'm currently trying
to save up as much $$$ as I can to buy his Stunt and Hero Stormtrooper and
his TIE-Fighter Pilot Helmet, and it would kill me if I finally had all the cash saved
up and couldn't buy those Helmets anymore ... any info would be great - Thanks

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by _Lee_+Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_Lee_ @ Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM)</div>

Firslty,i did not mention any names with my coment...[/b]

You didn't have to... :confused

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
I merely stated that IMO another company had falsely led their customers and were apparently guilty of doing what you suggest AA has done.

MR and AA are guilty of doing the same thing? Are you serious?.? :lol

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
You dont have to agree with me,but calling me what you did is in itself trying to incite trouble.

If the shoe fits.

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
I did not and will not attempt to stir up trouble or incite disruption here.

Too late.

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
I posted a reasonable enough comment about what could happen in the future...

Nope, you made a ridiculouls, unsupported correlation between AA and MR. AT LEAST you could have supported your claims while hijacking the thread.

<!--QuoteBegin-_Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
As i said to you yesterday...

:lol
All you said yesterday was you have no interest in rationally discussing the topic at hand.

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Mar 11 2006, 09:19 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Mar 11 2006, 09:19 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Gytheran

@Mar 11 2006, 09:47 AM
Anything to draw attention from AA, eh Jez?  :rolleyes

[snapback]1203565[/snapback]​

Well there was an uncalled for shot from the black kettle.

And Lee has a point, a good one, I never saw you guys take Rubies to task for their "from the molds" Vader or Clone helmets. I never saw you guys trash to the nth degree Don Post for their works. Funny how none of the naysayers went lynch mob over licensed companies for their clearly false claims, bad molds, etc. but then again they weren't directly competing in the fan market were they?

I wonder how this would have all begun had LFL licensed AA in his current situation and supported all his claims. I would bet there wouldn't be half of the "self interest" negative comments made as we've seen. For every one anti-AA person who honestly doesn't like his work, there are probably a dozen who have pesronal agendas or friends who do.

[snapback]1203584[/snapback]​

[/b]

LA, he's referring to MR. :rolleyes

Stay on target.... stay on target...

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Mar 11 2006, 09:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Mar 11 2006, 09:12 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Mar 11 2006, 09:26 AM
Mike as Flynn stated he will not get an opportunity to present a defense. He will only be able to answer to the penaltys. You were the one earlier who made the statement that he would probably be in financial ruin. So I was using your own logic to make the point of why not present the defense when he had the chance. So Mike I am waiting to see how you spin this once the UK court backs the LFL verdict. Since you can seem to accept the no default loss.

[snapback]1203555[/snapback]​

And as Flynn stated, he's not a lawyer. Someone familiar with some UK law at the RPB and some others here have said that actually there will be ways to defend his position against the USA decision to either have the charges dropped or monetary reduction to the decision. I believe, but don't recall exactly what he said, that at that point AA's legal team can show that in the UK AA has ownership of the rights and thereby the action in the USA does not hold in carrying through the fines. The UK court, again as I'm understanding all this, might agree that in the UK AA does own those right but still can't sell in the USA and has done so...so still might likely penalize him. However, if at that time the court agrees with the defense evidence of his provenance to lower or alter the USA court claims then AA would have recourse in the UK to possible take action. This is what I am gathering from reading what others are posting.

But of course this is all wild speculation. None of us are involved in the case nor know the intricacies of law, let alone UK law.

I notice, AGAIN, you avoided my question about why didn't LFL pursue this in the UK to prove their position in the ST derivitive works process. Why is that Ben? Funny how you keep harping on me about what I've clearly said is my opinion and how there is always something we don't understand, and yet you constantly avoid discussing a major point from the start. If LFL is that solid in it's case against AA about the design, production, and contract of the ST helmet (and others)...why wasn't that done in the UK where LFL does have EU legal presense and why did they not just destroy him in his home field instead of going through a lower CA court? Then there would be no question that LFL performed within contractual law in hiring AA, that they did originate the 3D molding process, that AA didn't have the molds in his possession, etc. But the current case doesn't defend LFL anymore than it did AA.

And no spin if the UK does award damages. The only one spinning is you, I've accepted and explained why IMO a default occurred as have others. If the UK awards whatever damages and nothing more comes out, that's the end of the game and nothing still is proven for either AA and his claims or LFL and their claims. And we're left sitting with no answers to all the questions.

[snapback]1203579[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike US Federal court is the logical route for any US based company to take this type of thing. Especially when you are a company that has US attorneys on retainer for this type of thing. So not really avoiding your question I thought the answer was pretty obvious. Also the fact that the helmets have been sold in the US also makes it a logical venue of choice.

Also Mike the answers are their in black and white. He is now guilty of all charges due to no defense. That in itself is satisfactory to me. But lets look at some facts here:

1. AA did use a recasted stand from MR. Which you did nothing but defend AA on that.

2. They did advertise that the helmets were from the original unaltered moulds. However later on in a letter from AA himself he admits that they were altered.

3. AA admits "It was 30 years ago and an artist friend of mine who Lucas had found took the opportunity to say he could do them (moulds) and what he really meant was, `I know a man that can do them.' I'm the man, so I created them for him."

Now as he states there I made them for him. As in LFL so once again lets look at the ethics of a professional being contracted to make something for a client and then turning around and using his property to make profits.

So Mike once again lets look at the ethics of AA's operation and now the fact that he didn't even defend himself in court. And I think we can draw our own conclusions from the chain of events.

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by JRX@Mar 11 2006, 03:35 PM
Does anybody know how long AA will still be in business as I'm currently trying
to save up as much $$$ as I can to buy his Stunt and Hero Stormtrooper and
his TIE-Fighter Pilot Helmet, and it would kill me if I finally had all the cash saved
up and couldn't buy those Helmets anymore ... any info would be great - Thanks 

[snapback]1203590[/snapback]​

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read, considering the 12 pages of this crap posted. Go troll elsewhere.

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by JRX@Mar 11 2006, 03:35 PM
Does anybody know how long AA will still be in business as I'm currently trying
to save up as much $$$ as I can to buy his Stunt and Hero Stormtrooper and
his TIE-Fighter Pilot Helmet, and it would kill me if I finally had all the cash saved
up and couldn't buy those Helmets anymore ... any info would be great - Thanks 

[snapback]1203590[/snapback]​

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read, considering the 12 pages of this crap posted. Go troll elsewhere.

 

[atacpdx]

Look guys, the '56 law was written primarily with print in mind and came about due to a case involving author's and publishers.

It conveys rights to the entire chain. This means that if for example, I live in the UK and the Queen writes me a letter, we both have certain rights with regards to that letter. I have ownership, can destroy it etc. but cannot reproduce and sell it in any way (and if displaying it, must provide "named credit") without the author's permission.

This has actually come into play with regards to many of Diana's writings.

Now if commissioned to write me that letter, at that point, the Queen retains no rights beyond "named credit" and all rights transfer to me. If you look at UK case law, there have been many cases where writer's and publisher's, confused by the wording of the law, have filed suits after one side or the other has unintentionally violated it and either sold or reproduced work's to which they lacked proper ownership. This is not a new controversey. In addition, the pattern of penalties is well established. The only wrinkle is the addition of the US court to the mix.

My guess based on patterns in these cases is the UK courts will award about 50%-65% of whatever the US award is.

I now release you all so you can scream "See I told ya" and print your winkies.

 

[_Lee_]

Originally posted by Gytheran+Mar 11 2006, 03:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gytheran @ Mar 11 2006, 03:43 PM)</div>

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
Firslty,i did not mention any names with my coment...

You didn't have to... :confused

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
I merely stated that IMO another company had falsely led their customers and were apparently guilty of doing what you suggest AA has done.

MR and AA are guilty of doing the same thing? Are you serious?.? :lol

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
You dont have to agree with me,but calling me what you did is in itself trying to incite trouble.

If the shoe fits.

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
I did not and will not attempt to stir up trouble or incite disruption here.

Too late.

Originally posted by _Lee_@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
I posted a reasonable enough comment about what could happen in the future...

Nope, you made a ridiculouls, unsupported correlation between AA and MR. AT LEAST you could have supported your claims while hijacking the thread.

<!--QuoteBegin-_Lee_

@Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM
As i said to you yesterday...

:lol
All you said yesterday was you have no interest in rationally discussing the topic at hand.

[snapback]1203593[/snapback]​

[/b]

1)Ok,whatever you say...if the shoe fits.But i think the only reason you wont buy from SDS is the fact that your head is way to big for one of their helmets

2)You made ridiculous unsupported facts about AA being a liar and whatever else.Where is *YOUR* proof? not LFL proof..*YOUR* proof.

3)I havent had any trouble with my comment except for you trying to incite me

4)I do have interest in this thread,but you dont seem to want to allow anyone with an opinion different to yours to get a word in edgeways.And when they do,you become arrogant and abusive.

I give up with you.It is you that is trying to cause trouble,not me.I have an opinion and i stick by it...full stop.No one else has jumped down my throat like you have,but then again you tend to do it with everybody.

 

[Gytheran]