So you will believe a rumour based on nothing but won’t believe the board of directors denying said rumour unless they sue? What kind of crazy mindset is that?
Says Tesla. You’re a fool if someone saying “nuh uh!” is good enough for you. Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ vs. the reputation of Tesla.
won’t believe the board of directors denying said rumour unless they sue?
Tell me you know absolute dick-all about corporations, without telling me you know dick-all about corporations.
I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out? My dude, your native Australia has a better chance of eliminating every single venomous critter on that island than any corporate board admitting that. And that goes double for the single most overvalued stock on the planet, whose price is driven solely by the hype man’s promises.
So yes. If and when Tesla sues the WSJ, and wins that case, then I’ll believe they were right. Until then, I’m going to treat them like the lying Nazi-enabling shit car company they are.
So I’m a fool for believing the board members, but you’re not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ
I’m assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn’t.
I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out?
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.
billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 days ago
When Tesla wins a civil suit about this story, then I’ll believe they’re not lying.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 5 days ago
So you will believe a rumour based on nothing but won’t believe the board of directors denying said rumour unless they sue? What kind of crazy mindset is that?
billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Says Tesla. You’re a fool if someone saying “nuh uh!” is good enough for you. Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ vs. the reputation of Tesla.
Tell me you know absolute dick-all about corporations, without telling me you know dick-all about corporations.
I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out? My dude, your native Australia has a better chance of eliminating every single venomous critter on that island than any corporate board admitting that. And that goes double for the single most overvalued stock on the planet, whose price is driven solely by the hype man’s promises.
So yes. If and when Tesla sues the WSJ, and wins that case, then I’ll believe they were right. Until then, I’m going to treat them like the lying Nazi-enabling shit car company they are.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 5 days ago
So I’m a fool for believing the board members, but you’re not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
I’m assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn’t.
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.