On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
> How does "and pay Rossi what is agreed upon." mean "this troll here > defending a vulture capitalist outfit ". Something is wrong with my writing > or your reading. > No, something is wrong with _your_ reading. My use of the word 'blazes' should have clued you in as to the context of who I was referring-to. Don't be so defensive. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Che <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thomas Darden shall not avoid the requirements of the Licence Agreement >>> and pay Rossi what is agreed upon. The positive ERV is the ONLY requirement >>> for payment defined in the LA. Even the Pope must follow the law. Being >>> a sainted person does not give that person the right to ignore >>> a legally binding agreement. >>> >> >> >> Why the blazes is this troll here defending a vulture capitalist outfit >> which is welching on a contract which has quite apparently NOT been voided >> on the Rossi side..? I read the entire legal complaint. This *all* hinges >> on the outcome of the long-term validation process. My understanding is >> that this *was* a success. >> >> Who's lying here... and why? >> >> >> >
