>>58401306
>You didn't imply anywhere, at anytime that anything is being used without consent.
Exactly? I assumed you did and then you confirmed, in
>>58400465 that I was correct.
>Initially, your argument was that Digimon are cucks for allowing TPC to do a collab -
I said Digifags are for not minding that, not bandai.
>Go back over your "argument". Where did you say "oh if they didn't both agree to collab" - you didn't
Again, you're the one that brought up that scenario. I wasn't even considering the notion that bandai would release a pokemon product without authorization.
>You're just blabbering on about x scenario and reverse scenario. That implies nothing.
Anon,
>>58398466, that was you.
If indulging in hypotheticals is hard for you then you shouldn't have brought them up in the first place.
>>58401335
>Who is the one who initially started this by calling Digimon "cucks" for a collab with Pokémon?
I said digifags are, and of course such a post has bias in it. You aren't discovering fire precisely. Its like positing that one of the largest media conglomerates in the world might use one of the biggest IPs ever without the license, its absurd.
>I'm not putting words in your mouth either.
Yes, you did. Maybe not on purpose but of lack of reading comprehension but that's your problem.
