[BlueFlames]

Sizzler, the point wasn't to make some hard-and-fast comparison between music and video games.  I was just pointing out that big corporations have had their legal departments go to amazing lengths with less (in a fiscal sense) cause.  Again, I'm not arguing that the community is going to get sued or bullied or suffer some other calamity, courtesy of the Interplay legal department, just that the possibility exists.

[WMCoolmon]

No, you aren't. Nobody has argued that the possibility doesn't exist, but you keep on trying to refute their points and disagree with them.

I don't think it's very likely, either, since Interplay wouldn't be getting anything out of it. It's an old game, the community is mostly self-contained, and a lot more people are playing with the engine because of the community than are playing because of anything else. If Interplay wants additional profit at this point, their main choices are to work with the community, or make a new game based off of the publicity of this community. FS2 stopped getting published because of lack of demand, not because of lack of supply. And the game's too old for them to do some retroactive advertising.

[BlueFlames]

No, you aren't.  Blah, blah, blah....

Here I respond to a post that implies there is no legal basis for a suit over unofficial distribution of FS2.

Here I respond to a post that says such a suit would be "just ridiculous," which I interpreted to mean as nearly or completely impossible.  If that interpretation was in error, I apologize to Sizzler, but my point otherwise stands.

Here I respond to Sizzler's attempt to undermine a premise of my second post.

[WMCoolmon]

Here I respond to a post that implies there is no legal basis for a suit over unofficial distribution of FS2.

Actually all he said was that "they have no right to prevent us from using our copies the way we want". I read that to mean copies that we already own, I don't see anything in looking over that post again which suggests that my first reading wasn't correct.

Here I respond to a post that says such a suit would be "just ridiculous," which I interpreted to mean as nearly or completely impossible.  If that interpretation was in error, I apologize to Sizzler, but my point otherwise stands.

I'd try not to make the assumption that "ridiculous" means "impossible". It's not guaranteed and it's not easy to understand from the context of a post. Plus thesizzler clarified his statement by saying they didn't care about us, not that they couldn't go after us.

Here I respond to Sizzler's attempt to undermine a premise of my second post.

Which was in response to you attempting to undermine a point in his post, which was not a direct response to any of your posts. You were the aggressor in that exchange, not him.

Thank you for proving that telepathy has yet to develop in humans.

You're claiming to argue a point that nobody can rationally agree with so that you can present evidence to suggest that the possibility is much more likely than other people feel it is. And when people disagree with those statements, you jump back to saying that you're just arguing it's a possibility.

[BlueFlames]

Clearly you understand my intent better than I do, so I'll just PM you my password, so that you can write my future posts for me.

[Mongoose]

Unless anyone has a particularly good reason as to why this should continue, I think it's better off closed.