[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by WorksForTurkeys

because you started your post with a statement that you weren't going to defend MS, and you then take the indirect position of defending them.

There are people who stand on Broadway playing Three-Card Monty, and they have confederates who help them work the con by masquerading as ordinary people while they are actually shills for the guy running the con.

No. You made an assertion that MS should just dump Handango and that MS was essentially approving of this action towards Omnisoft by not doing so.

I asked you for evidence that the contract between MS and Handango allowed this.

And rather that answering the question, you threw out a red herring, and so far, still haven't answered the question, which is understandable as I seriously doubt you thought your comment through. Advocating that Party A breaks a contract against Party B as a retaliatory measure because Party B seems to have broken a contract with Party C makes no sense. You should be throwing red herrings. You started with one logical fallacy, so engaging in more might actually confuse enough people that you might get away with it, except I won't let that happen.

Furthermore, you have displayed an inexplicable inability to use Google. :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by WorksForTurkeys

because you started your post with a statement that you weren't going to defend MS, and you then take the indirect position of defending them.

There are people who stand on Broadway playing Three-Card Monty, and they have confederates who help them work the con by masquerading as ordinary people while they are actually shills for the guy running the con.

No. You made an assertion that MS should just dump Handango and that MS was essentially approving of this action towards Omnisoft by not doing so.

I asked you for evidence that the contract between MS and Handango allowed this.

And rather that answering the question, you threw out a red herring, and so far, still haven't answered the question, which is understandable as I seriously doubt you thought your comment through. Advocating that Party A breaks a contract against Party B as a retaliatory measure because Party B seems to have broken a contract with Party C makes no sense. You should be throwing red herrings. You started with one logical fallacy, so engaging in more might actually confuse enough people that you might get away with it, except I won't let that happen.

Furthermore, you have displayed an inexplicable inability to use Google. :roll: