You lack the basic comprehension needed to understand that I've already addressed that point several times and that I never once disagreed that Disney might have broken contract in that manner.
What point have I not engaged with?
These?
“ I made 2 good points that you ignored:
a greater number of subscribers may have watched the movie than the number lost from theater tickets
there are many people who might watch it on someone elses' subscription but never would have watched the movie otherwise(people like me).”
Neither are relevant since that’s not how the subscription service works and is based off an assumption not relevant to the case.
You replied with an increasing sized wall of text repeating the same thing. I respond and you shout “TLDR SIMP! You keep saying the same thing.”
Me: There is insufficient information to pass judgement in the article. I will remain skeptical until further information is given.
You: Muh Disney+
Me: Yes, but Disney said she's being compensated fairly and earning more than she would have without it. We should wait for the truth
You: But people watched on Disney+!
Me: and it might not have impacted her earning potential significantly. Surely not to the tune of $50 million. We should let the courts sort it out.
You: Disney plus! Contract!
Me: Yeah, but if she ended up earning more, I don't see how she can pursue damages to the tune of 50 mill. We don't have enough info to take her side just because she's suing
You: YOU JUST LIEK DISNEY!
Me: No, I just think you are needlessly defending a millionaire. All I was saying is wait for the truth
You: DISNEH PLUUUUSSSS
Me: SIIIIIIIMP
That’s a very generous interpretation of your argument given you didn’t start with let’s see how this plays out in court. You started with claiming this was all about attention and no way it cost her that much money. You never sue for the actual damages you sue for more that way when they settle you will most likely get what you are owed.
So yeah pointing out that she likely lost income on ticket sales over the subscription makes sense when you look at your initial statement of she didn’t lose money she’s doing it for attention.
Initial statement doesn't matter because I clarified in later comments and you ignored. I literally stated multiple times throughout that I'm not supporting disney or ScarJo and there's not enough info to go on yet i.e. wait. Taking what I said exactly literally when those points can be directly inferred from what I'd already said is disingenuous argumentation.
Literally 2nd reply to you: "I don't know if she earns less per person from Disney+, in which case there might be an argument". Basically ceded the point on the condition that later information proves she lost revenue, otherwise it's irrelevant. You then continued to go "BuT WhAt If OtHeR PeOpLe WaTcHeD It WiThOuT a SuBsCrIpTiOn?" as if I'd literally not JUST addressed that.
your initial statement of she didn’t lose money she’s doing it for attention
That's an exceedingly harsh interpretation of what I'd said. My initial comment was a rebuttal to this line "they violated the contract to their (Disney's) financial benefit" which implied Disney weren't compensating her for the Disney+ viewings by neglecting to mention SHE ALSO BENEFITED.
Our entire argument is based around "we don't know how much she benefited", and YOU feel it wasn't enough if she's suing even without supporting evidence.
It's entirely reasonable to assume that most things hollywood stars do publicly is for attention. It wouldn't be the 1st time she's done something with a woke bent to try and stay relevant.
You lack the basic comprehension needed to understand that I've already addressed that point several times and that I never once disagreed that Disney might have broken contract in that manner.
What point have I not engaged with? These? “ I made 2 good points that you ignored: a greater number of subscribers may have watched the movie than the number lost from theater tickets
there are many people who might watch it on someone elses' subscription but never would have watched the movie otherwise(people like me).”
Neither are relevant since that’s not how the subscription service works and is based off an assumption not relevant to the case.
You replied with an increasing sized wall of text repeating the same thing. I respond and you shout “TLDR SIMP! You keep saying the same thing.”
Me: There is insufficient information to pass judgement in the article. I will remain skeptical until further information is given. You: Muh Disney+ Me: Yes, but Disney said she's being compensated fairly and earning more than she would have without it. We should wait for the truth You: But people watched on Disney+! Me: and it might not have impacted her earning potential significantly. Surely not to the tune of $50 million. We should let the courts sort it out. You: Disney plus! Contract! Me: Yeah, but if she ended up earning more, I don't see how she can pursue damages to the tune of 50 mill. We don't have enough info to take her side just because she's suing You: YOU JUST LIEK DISNEY! Me: No, I just think you are needlessly defending a millionaire. All I was saying is wait for the truth You: DISNEH PLUUUUSSSS Me: SIIIIIIIMP
That’s a very generous interpretation of your argument given you didn’t start with let’s see how this plays out in court. You started with claiming this was all about attention and no way it cost her that much money. You never sue for the actual damages you sue for more that way when they settle you will most likely get what you are owed.
So yeah pointing out that she likely lost income on ticket sales over the subscription makes sense when you look at your initial statement of she didn’t lose money she’s doing it for attention.
Initial statement doesn't matter because I clarified in later comments and you ignored. I literally stated multiple times throughout that I'm not supporting disney or ScarJo and there's not enough info to go on yet i.e. wait. Taking what I said exactly literally when those points can be directly inferred from what I'd already said is disingenuous argumentation.
Literally 2nd reply to you: "I don't know if she earns less per person from Disney+, in which case there might be an argument". Basically ceded the point on the condition that later information proves she lost revenue, otherwise it's irrelevant. You then continued to go "BuT WhAt If OtHeR PeOpLe WaTcHeD It WiThOuT a SuBsCrIpTiOn?" as if I'd literally not JUST addressed that.
That's an exceedingly harsh interpretation of what I'd said. My initial comment was a rebuttal to this line "they violated the contract to their (Disney's) financial benefit" which implied Disney weren't compensating her for the Disney+ viewings by neglecting to mention SHE ALSO BENEFITED.
Our entire argument is based around "we don't know how much she benefited", and YOU feel it wasn't enough if she's suing even without supporting evidence.
It's entirely reasonable to assume that most things hollywood stars do publicly is for attention. It wouldn't be the 1st time she's done something with a woke bent to try and stay relevant.