Contrary to your claim, I did not "fail" to address "any" of your questions.
I did earlier point out that the contract stipulation (that was a mention!), though arguably enforceable, was not the entire story.
Which is quite different than total failure to address the narrow argument you are attempting to have this entire matter defined under.
It is your own replies to me sir, which utterly fail to address *any* of the points made in my direct communications to you.
The misdirection accusation, though perhaps music to you when directed towards others, is here, narrowly between you and I, much more applicable to you than I in regards to our communications towards one another.
Besides,speaking of unanswered questions, there is still the question of the third party, isn't there? Do you wish to duck THAT one?
How does a party not a signatory to a contract, become bound by the same contract? How do the actions of a party not a signatory rightfully apply an actual signatory?
Until that is answered, the remainder of your entire argument is superfluous, isn't it?
What part of “all promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center produced for your event (including invitations, programs, press releases, etc.)” is not clear?
So where did you address these questions:
Did the D.I. issue the press release?
Was the press release approved?
Does the rental contract not state that all promotional materials require approval prior to printing or broadcast?
Do the id/creationists/cdesign proponentsist have a separate set of rules from everybody else wishing to rent this space?
Again nice try, but your misdirection will not work.