The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,315
Location
Leeds
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.

Ok, so why did the girl take $250k instead of just going to the Police? If the allegation were true, then surely you'd not be interested in taking money, you'd just want the criminal to face justice?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,451
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…

I'm making it abundantly clear that you have the nerve to request I feed you information from the one singular source without ever reading it yourself. Something which is extremely obvious.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Apr 2010
Posts
4,894
Location
Ipswich
To be fair a settlement does not necessarily indicate guilt. However it does seem like it happened.

The signs are there however unless she spoke on it we won’t know anymore.

I wish the idiot stayed in his lane and did what he was good at but here we are. The man has been going down this road and doing increasingly more repulsive **** which is only going to negatively impact all the good his companies have accomplished.

Makes me sad.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
12,644
To be fair a settlement does not necessarily indicate guilt. However it does seem like it happened.
I'd argue a settlement does indicate guilt. At least in the general publics opinion. Why pay when you are innocent?

And I guess the court to prove innocence is a lot lower level of certainty compared to criminal court, which does make it a 'next best alternative' to lengthy court proceedings to prove innocence and lose anyway.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,972
I'm making it abundantly clear that you have the nerve to request I feed you information from the one singular source without ever reading it yourself. Something which is extremely obvious.

Nope, you’re just projecting. I’ve asked you about your arguments thats all. You’ve made claims you simply can’t support, he’s not implied the incident occurred by saying there is more to the story and nor has he confessed, you’re basing an argument on things that aren’t there or that you’ve assumed.

There was a poster who wrongly concluded that a settlement implies guilt and didn’t follow another posters line of reasonsing that there isn’t necessarily a victim. I’ve simply pointed out that that’s a comment that the exposure incident didn’t necessarily take place. Then you jumped in with some argument about how the statements made provide evidence for it, they don’t, the arguments you’re making are based on your own additional assumptions/projections. That you can’t reason with this is your own issue, like I said before I don’t think we’re going to agree on this. If there is any new argument then please go ahead otherwise this seems rather pointless.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,315
Location
Leeds
I'd argue a settlement does indicate guilt. At least in the general publics opinion. Why pay when you are innocent?

And I guess the court to prove innocence is a lot lower level of certainty compared to criminal court, which does make it a 'next best alternative' to lengthy court proceedings to prove innocence and lose anyway.

It's been explained to you several times, what answer are you looking for?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,972
Why are you lying to my face. You didn't read the article and still haven't. Tell me who's making the claims in Business Insider.

I don't really know what you're on about now, here is the article:


We're talking about the claim within that article re: an apparent incident on Elon's plane no?

What exactly are you referring to here? Could you be more specific, please?

What does any of this have to do with me pointing out that the conclusions you're drawing from Elon's statements are dubious/involve you adding in your own additional assumptions/projections etc. and don't in themselves provide evidence in support of the claims made.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,315
Location
Leeds
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,639
Location
Surrey
The best thing about this thread, is the people saying "where is the evidence?", as though Musk and his legal team didn't think about asking that before giving a woman $250,000....
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,451
I don't really know what you're on about now, here is the article:


We're talking about the claim within that article re: an apparent incident on Elon's plane no?

What exactly are you referring to here? Could you be more specific, please?

What does any of this have to do with me pointing out that the conclusions you're drawing from Elon's statements are dubious/involve you adding in your own additional assumptions/projections etc. and don't in themselves provide evidence in support of the claims made.

So now I've forced you to obtain a link to the article you can read it and answer your own questions.

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.

Why is there a plank of assumptions in your words when you complain about what I say?

You still haven't answered my question of your reading and comprehension which was, who is making the claim in Business Insider.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,972
So now I've forced you to obtain a link to the article you can read it and answer your own questions.

Why is there a plank of assumptions in your words when you complain about what I say?

You still haven't answered my question of your reading and comprehension which was, who is making the claim in Business Insider.

Sorry but I read the article when it came out, contrary to popular belief I don't really want to have to engage in multiple back and forth posts, why can't you just make whatever point it was you wanted to make, just speak plainly and make your point?

I think this seems to have come from you talking about the friend whereas I'm talking about the claim the employee made which resulted in the payout right? If that's the case then why not just say so and explain what relevance you think it has - AFAIK that there was an employee making this claim isn't being disputed ergo I'm not sure why you've become so fixated on this.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,451
Sorry but I read the article when it came out, contrary to popular belief I don't really want to have to engage in multiple back and forth posts, why can't you just make whatever point it was you wanted to make, just speak plainly and make your point?

I think this seems to have come from you talking about the friend whereas I'm talking about the claim the employee made which resulted in the payout right? If that's the case then why not just say so and explain what relevance you think it has - AFAIK that there was an employee making this claim isn't being disputed ergo I'm not sure why you've become so fixated on this.

This comes from you stating as fact several points which have exactly as much evidence as the sexual misconduct claim but somehow you're oblivious to that. This raises questions of what effort you made to look at the article.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,972
This comes from you stating as fact several points which have exactly as much evidence as the sexual misconduct claim but somehow you're oblivious to that.

Again, you're just being vague...

Seems like you perhaps do understand now how your argument was flawed and now you're just engaging in deflection/whataboutery. Is there some specific point you think is relevant here or in dispute - if so just highlight it, otherwise this is just noise.
 
Top Bottom