marc
Your logic is just very skewed.
Note that you begin with the speculation that WP had access to Buckeye's client info.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Had WP, so desired, they probably could have gained access to Buckeye's client info. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you treat what is "probably" true (in your opinion) as a foregone conclusion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Bottom line, no self respecting company, gives another company, and certainly not a competitor access to its secure servers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your conclusion that WP had access to Buckeye's servers starts out as "probably" true, then in the next sentence it turns into a "bottom line" conclusion.
I notice that you amended your position from what Buckeye "knew" to what they "should have known." There is a big difference between the two, it is the difference between knowingly assisting a bad book, and inadvertently assisting a bad book. It appears to me, particularly in light of RIO's vouching, that the latter is true--Buckeye did not knowingly assist WP in robbing gamblers.
I don't think that it is fair to take a shot at Buckeye, a company that has never been guilty of a slow pay or no pay.
Just my .02
GL
Your logic is just very skewed.
Note that you begin with the speculation that WP had access to Buckeye's client info.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Had WP, so desired, they probably could have gained access to Buckeye's client info. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you treat what is "probably" true (in your opinion) as a foregone conclusion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Bottom line, no self respecting company, gives another company, and certainly not a competitor access to its secure servers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your conclusion that WP had access to Buckeye's servers starts out as "probably" true, then in the next sentence it turns into a "bottom line" conclusion.
I notice that you amended your position from what Buckeye "knew" to what they "should have known." There is a big difference between the two, it is the difference between knowingly assisting a bad book, and inadvertently assisting a bad book. It appears to me, particularly in light of RIO's vouching, that the latter is true--Buckeye did not knowingly assist WP in robbing gamblers.
I don't think that it is fair to take a shot at Buckeye, a company that has never been guilty of a slow pay or no pay.
Just my .02
GL