[stillblue]

I think you've misinterpreted the guidelines on my comment.

Mine was not "Did you even read the article?". It was "Did you read it whole or skim it?"

The reason I asked what I did - the very thing the original commenter had a problem with was thoroughly addressed in that article.

If you have no idea why I think the person did not fully read the article, I'm sorry but I have to ask you if you too have read the article in full or just skimmed it?

This is just bizarre that I see two instances of, what I assume, are reading comprehension difficulties about the exact same thing.

[nhinck]

I guess I've got to ask, did you read my comment or skim it?

Because the point of it is why are you surprised that Google doesn't want to spend time on resolving and reinstating his account, not the trademark issues which were only restating for context.

[stillblue]

Your original comment was why google would expend time/resources in verifying if his app is "legit" when he is using the Eurovision name and logo.

The point of it is not what you think it is, it is what your comment actually says.

Let's go full cirlce on this. Did you, the original commenter, read your own comment after you wrote it?