'kthnxbuhbye' Is a very strong logical argument.
IANAL, but i'm pretty sure, we are all very good informed about the fact in which timeframe the split will happen and even are informed about the side-effects about _any coin or token which may be in transit within that timeframe_.
Poloniex even stated very clearly, that they "might or might not" support BCC at all.
So .... good luck with your case at any court, i would not bet to much money on that. But hey.
What are we simple users against such a strong; 'kthnxbuhbye'
P.s.: Insulting others does not make the others look bad at all. 8-)
I have no intentions of suing them; they're giving me my property. Whatever they said they would do to support the BCH token on their exchange or not does not change their own TOS that states the tokens I (as a customer) send to them are my properties. This would be the public and private keys to the BTC, which would include all assets associated with them. And seeing as they set a precedent in the past with ETH/ETC, yes those BCH associated with the BTC private keys I've sent them are indeed mine and should be rightfully credited to me.
As far as the little insult spin goes, it was a jab at the myopic down-talk, much like this is.
p.s. your mother.
You talk about logical argument but what you say is not logical at all. Funds are not stored on a BTC address for you. You can check what happens on the address when you send funds. Furthermore when you trade on poloniex, it's all virtual, no tokens are moving from wallet to wallet.
When poloniex say you own the tokens, that's an IOU, nothing more. They owed you BTC, and they gave you BTC back.