I agree: Fredo was a traitor. I don't agree: It was not necessary for Michael to have him killed.

Now, if I may, what "games"? I don't understand

Almost all we do in these threads is ask hypothetical questions about the characters and plot.

Isn't the very title of this thread yet another hypothetical question?

I'm trying to make a point here with my question:

I presented a hypothetical situation in which I asked if had Fredo publicly disageed with Michael a second time, and had those been his only two mistakes, would that have been grounds for his execution?

You had no problem with that hypothetical, and said that it would.

I, of course, don't agree, and I suspected that you didn't even really agree with that yourself.

So I posed a second hypothetical question, in which I pointed out that Sonny had two transgressions, errors in judgement, mistakes, whatever you wish to call them, which were far more serious, IMO, than publicly disagreeing with Michael.

And I asked if, in your opinion, that would warrant the execution of Sonny.

And at that point, rather than responding to the question, you did what? I'm not sure.

If you want to say I'm "playing a game", I might agree. But if I am, I'm playing the same one that you are, I think.

It goes like this:

Someone posts something, and then when someone disagrees they post something else in an attempt to explain that the first poster is being illogical, or incorrect, or whatever.

Am I doing anything other than that?

If you want to say that you don't wish to answer this one - which seems to be what you are saying - I guess I can't make you.

I mean if this question was in a separate thread of it's own.....