Elon Musk buys twitter for $44 billion as left wing media melts down

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
I swear just the other day, it was you, sharing a video of a disgruntled twitter employee, as though it had any value, and then spent message after message trying to sell it as having any value. I swear that was you.

What makes you think that employee was disgruntled?

So when he says there's "a lot more to this story." after being informed of the entire sexual misconduct story to be published by business insider you suspect that to mean he wanted to say more about the settlement/legal drama and actually the bit about the sexual misconduct wasn't up for contention...

This is not a quality argument you're making dowie, in fact it's terrible.

No it’s a terrible argument you’re making where you’ve interpreted that comment to be some sort of admission the incident took place rather than simply a comment that there is more to the story.

You’re adding in details that aren’t there (that’s your assumptions/projections you’re basing an argument on) and then claiming he’s changed direction by saying the accusations are a lie.

Assume, for the sake of argument, this was a disgruntled employee, who made up an accusation then got a settlement, can you not see that the statements that there is more to the story and that the claim is a lie aren’t mutually exclusive things. The contradiction you’re seeing is the result of your own assumption that the statement constituted an acknowledgment that an incident occurred when all that was referred to was the story.

That’s a bad argument because it rests entirely on your own assumption.

If you don’t agree then I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree then unless anything new gets added here.
 
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,520
Location
Surrey
So when he says there's "a lot more to this story." after being informed of the entire sexual misconduct story to be published by business insider you suspect that to mean he wanted to say more about the settlement/legal drama and actually the bit about the sexual misconduct wasn't up for contention...

This is not a quality argument you're making dowie, in fact it's terrible.

When Elon Musk was briefly willing to say more on the subject the more on the subject was definitely going to involve an explanation from him about the reason there was any grounds for any settlement to be made.

The abrupt change in direction to say it's all lies is an intervention by a third party, likely legal.

Oh and if it's actually lies there should be a libel suit basically instantly right? It's published for the world to see. Going to twitter to say it's a lie is not even close to going to the judge to say it's a lie.

What really confirms just how accurate this story is, is that Elon made it political before it was even out.

Shame on him. For me he has lost a chunk of respect since his twitter idea and everything that's happened since. I never took him to be an out right lier, but that was one. Though whether he believes his own lies or not we don't know. But to make this about the Dems being nasty to him was a very weak attempt to change the narrative to a political one against the Dems.

Really not what the possible soon to be owner of twitter should be doing.

Imagine what he can do about exposing personal messages on twitter between dem accounts. What he can do about tracking, what he can do to surpress dem tweets.

This you may think is not going to happen, it's Elon Musk, and I'd have thought that too only days ago, until a story about him getting his weiner out is about to be announced, then Elon goes and makes it about the Dems. This should worry all here, but the tribe will not care, because Elon's lies "hurts" the Dems.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,359
What makes you think that employee was disgruntled?



No it’s a terrible argument you’re making where you’ve interpreted that comment to be some sort of admission the incident took place rather than simply a comment that there is more to the story.

You’re adding in details that aren’t there (that’s your assumptions/projections you’re basing an argument on) and then claiming he’s changed direction by saying the accusations are a lie.

Assume, for the sake of argument, this was a disgruntled employee, who made up an accusation then got a settlement, can you not see that the statements that there is more to the story and that the claim is a lie aren’t mutually exclusive things. The contradiction you’re seeing is the result of your own assumption that the statement constituted an acknowledgment that an incident occurred when all that was referred to was the story.

That’s a bad argument because it rests entirely on your own assumption.

If you don’t agree then I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree then unless anything new gets added here.

Clearly that's going to be the case since telling a publication that you've got more to add to the story of your sexual misconduct and a settlement for silence does not promote any idea of innocence or reasonable behaviour having taken place.

Like I said, it's published by an American business news organisation for all to see. Quite clearly says he was a sexual miscreant, surely there's a libel case if his tweeting that it's a lie has any truth to it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
He simply said that there is more to the story, everything else is just you adding stuff. No there isn't necessarily a libel case.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on this.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
Clearly since more to the story is what he's decided is not in his best interests after legal advice.

I'm not sure what you even mean there?

Do you get that stating that there is more to a story doesn't mean he's necessarily going to expand on all the details of that publicly? Is that what has thrown you here? That he made that statement and then hasn't provided anything else?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,359
I'm not sure what you even mean there?

Do you get that stating that there is more to a story doesn't mean he's necessarily going to expand on all the details of that publicly? Is that what has thrown you here? That he made that statement and then hasn't provided anything else?

By reading the article you can be informed that Elon Musk was the one that asked for a publication delay for the purpose of giving his response to this sexual misconduct and payoff story.

Business insider obliged and Elon Musk decided to instead take to Twitter to announce he was about to be attacked then doubled down with a declaration that it was lies anyway.

So what was the intention in your mind dowie. Was there any intent to provide his apparently differing view on the matter? Have you any intent to read the article or are you replying to what I paraphrase here as if I'm the source material?
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,789
Location
England
Like most billionaires, Musk has become rich by convincing other people to give him their money, not by risking or spending his own. I have no problem with this, nor do I care how much money he makes (I'm opposed to salary caps) but I do believe that 'Musk has paid a lot of tax' belongs in the 'So what?' basket. Everyone's supposed to pay tax, I don't think Musk deserves a medal for doing what the rest of us do.

Elizabeth Holmes being the classic example, perhaps a bit more extreme though as she had no actual talent or merit at all.

I mean if the allegation is libellous then it'd be an easy win for Musk to get rid of the story, so yeah...

For a "public figure" in the US the bar for libel is so high it is next to impossible to successfully sue someone, I will even be surprised if Johnny Depp wins his case.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
By reading the article you can be informed that Elon Musk was the one that asked for a publication delay for the purpose of giving his response to this sexual misconduct and payoff story.

Business insider obliged and Elon Musk decided to instead take to Twitter to announce he was about to be attacked then doubled down with a declaration that it was lies anyway.

So what was the intention in your mind dowie. Was there any intent to provide his apparently differing view on the matter? Have you any intent to read the article or are you replying to what I paraphrase here as if I'm the source material?

But I don't need to second guess intentions etc.. my point was that basing an argument on that sort of thing is a bit flimsy. He's had this claim against him, it's gone to a mediator and they've ended up paying her off.

The point was that he could have made that statement, that there is more to the story in the universe where it did happen or in the universe where it didn't happen, it doesn't shed any light on whether the incident occurred or not nor does it indicate that he's necessarily going to share all details, he simply asked for more time to respond.

If he's had legal advice to not share further details then that's perhaps what he's followed. You can't reliably make assumptions based on someone presumably following legal advice nor necessarily assume that someone stating that there is more to a story implies that the alleged incident that forms part of the story is true.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,359
But I don't need to second guess intentions etc.. my point was that basing an argument on that sort of thing is a bit flimsy. He's had this claim against him, it's gone to a mediator and they've ended up paying her off.

The point was that he could have made that statement, that there is more to the story in the universe where it did happen or in the universe where it didn't happen, it doesn't shed any light on whether the incident occurred or not nor does it indicate that he's necessarily going to share all details, he simply asked for more time to respond.

If he's had legal advice to not share further details then that's perhaps what he's followed. You can't reliably make assumptions based on someone presumably following legal advice nor necessarily assume that someone stating that there is more to a story implies that the alleged incident that forms part of the story is true.

There are assumptions and there are clearly incompatible communications from Elon Musk.

1) Saying he has a side to tell
2) It's lies

There is clearly truth in the matter for him to believe there is a side for him to tell therefore an incident occurred. "incident" meaning any part of the claim.

What's this assumption from you that there was definitely a claim, a mediator or that they paid "her" off anyway, if you're going to go down this route that any part of the claim could be false then you should obey that yourself right?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
What's this assumption from you that there was definitely a claim, a mediator or that they paid "her" off anyway, if you're going to go down this route that any part of the claim could be false then you should obey that yourself right?

I'm not sure what you mean re: an assumption that there was definitely a claim? That isn't even in dispute is it? She exists, she made a claim? That a settlement was paid isn't in dispute is it either? The legal officer hasn't denied the payment of a settlement but rather he's not commenting on it.

The thing that is in dispute is what she is claiming surely? She claims the indecent exposure/offer to buy a horse, Elon claims that's a lie.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,359
I'm not sure what you mean re: an assumption that there was definitely a claim? That isn't even in dispute is it? She exists, she made a claim? That a settlement was paid isn't in dispute is it either?

The thing that is in dispute is what she is claiming surely?

Is it my turn to ask what the basis for your assumptions are now?

"She" is not making the claims and has said nothing. In fact if the settlement terms are true she cannot say a whole lot. So why are you suddenly confident in stating the claim and settlement is indisputable. Is the implied credibility too strong for it to be false?

I'll bet you still haven't read the article.

I'll further bet that there won't be a libel claim from Elon Musk because that might lift the restrictive settlement terms if the court demanded it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
Is it my turn to ask what the basis for your assumptions are now?

"She" is not making the claims and has said nothing. In fact if the settlement terms are true she cannot say a whole lot. So why are you suddenly confident in stating the claim and settlement is indisputable. Is the implied credibility too strong for it to be false?

Where do you think the story has come from? I mean you've gone from some mind-reading based on Elon's statement to questioning that the claim exists??? I'm not really sure what you're getting at here?

I think it's reasonable to assume this is a real person and she was employed at SpaceX and made this claim no? If not then please explain why not as AFAIK those things aren't being disputed?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,359
Where do you think the story has come from? I mean you've gone from some mind-reading based on Elon's statement to questioning that the claim exists??? I'm not really sure what you're getting at here?

I think it's reasonable to assume this is a real person and she was employed at SpaceX and made this claim no? If not then please explain why not as AFAIK those things aren't being disputed?

Right so you haven't read the article which is the one source for the story despite multiple prompts from me and are fully going on the titbits I paraphrase here.

That's why your posting is hollow, you're commenting without checking my source thus a wall of ? when I decline to feed you the information you require to argue your own angle.

Well in that case Elon Musk at the end of the article confessed to everything including details involving a horse mask and whip that no one wanted to know and would like to forget. Thus from the horses mouth he's guilty.
 
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,520
Location
Surrey
Well in that case Elon Musk at the end of the article confessed to everything including details involving a horse mask and whip that no one wanted to know and would like to forget. Thus from the horses mouth he's guilty.
isn't it a little late and pasture bed time to be horsing about like that? did you have another night-mare? stop trotting around, go back to bed and get a stable night sleep before you wake the neigh-bour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,177
Location
Leeds
So why was she paid? Was Musk just handing out free money that day?

Because of people like you who would choose to believe an accusation even with no evidence, even false accusations are damaging to reputations. Did you not see my previous post, you ask the same question?
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
12,020
Because of people like you who would choose to believe an accusation even with no evidence, even false accusations are damaging to reputations. Did you not see my previous post, you ask the same question?
Paying someone $250k to keep hush is just as damaging to reputation. People like you seem to believe these folks pay people off for no reason other than they have made an allegation.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
12,172
Location
5 degrees starboard
Paying someone $250k to keep hush is just as damaging to reputation. People like you seem to believe these folks pay people off for no reason other than they have made an allegation.
Sometimes you should just not sue for libel. Rebekah Vardy and Amber Heard may discover this.
A payment makes those more disposed to disbelieve him continue to do so. A trial amplified by the media makes more people say no smoke without fire.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,682
Right so you haven't read the article which is the one source for the story despite multiple prompts from me and are fully going on the titbits I paraphrase here.

That's why your posting is hollow, you're commenting without checking my source thus a wall of ? when I decline to feed you the information you require to argue your own angle.

Well in that case Elon Musk at the end of the article confessed to everything including details involving a horse mask and whip that no one wanted to know and would like to forget. Thus from the horses mouth he's guilty.

What are you even talking about here, you made a claim you couldn’t support and now you’ve just gone off on one. No Elon didn’t confess to everything and Elon’s statements aren’t evidence of the incident happening.

Saying there is more to the story is not necessarily an acknowledgment that the claimed incident of indecent exposure actually happened. That ought to be a straightforward point to understand but instead I’ve had multiple replies including this latest bizarre one where you’re saying he’s confessed…
 
Top Bottom