>>6961170>my argument is that cover did not officially announce this collab beforeAnd that argument falls apart when both parties in this deal would have wanted to keep it a surprise, which would also explain why
>>6960731 didn't have Gura in it.
>or sinceWhy would an announcement be needed after the ad dropped? The ad is enough of an announcement. Also
>>6959066>and given their prior actionsPrior actions are irrelevant especially if they wanted to keep it a surprise, and prior actions like what?
>you are the one saying big companies can do no wrong and have certainly never thrown their weight around beforeI'm not saying that, you're just being a retard.
>>6961303>nor the late addition of gura to the ad says anything conclusive.It isn't even conclusive that it was a late addition.
