It looks like you two just started posting your stuff without even reading the article.
According to the article, there was only ONE theater which put the film on two screens at a time, for ONE showing. FreeReign was suggesting, incorrectly I believe, that the per-screen numbers would be lower than my numbers because he thought my numbers were per-theater numbers, and not per-screen numbers.
I was trying to find out if he had any evidence that theaters had the movie on multiple screens, because if they didn’t, the per-theater and per-screen numbers would be the same anyway, and we wouldn’t have the argument. I am ignoring the one dual-screen showing, as it was a single instance, and not a screen available all the time (if you said “11 screens” you’d skew the numbers).
I have no idea why, based on a response to a person who seemed to confuse theaters with screens, you chose to claim that I hadn’t read the article, when in fact I’ve read this article, the previous article, and found two other articles that I used to cross-check my numbers and get further information.
I was simply trying a polite way of continuing the conversation with a freeper, rather than your typical response.