Twitter and Elon Musk (2 Viewers)

[BladeRunner]

What's the term for when somebody complains about something someone else is doing but are actively and purposefully doing it themselves, but then pretend that they are as innocent as a doe in the woods?

There's gotta' be a term for that.  I just know it.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

After this post I posted another reply in the context of the discussion that read:

This post got me a 5 week suspension from the boards.  The @FBG Moderator asked me to "stop the condescending trolling if you come back."

If anyone can provide a reasonable explanation of who this somewhat hyperbolic (but not overly so!) criticism of the Court was condescendingly trolling, I will give $100 to the charity of your choice.

At this point we have to just assume that Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas will literally just vote for anything Republicans want. We're like two liberal justice deaths away from re-segregated schools.

Maybe he gave you a timeout for Hyberbole?  I will say it seems very heavy handed compared to what others have posted.  I would hope that this isn't the line he is drawing for suspendible posts.

Or maybe it was the last straw in a lifetime achievement award?

 

[AAABatteries]

The mod said condescending.

What in that post was condescending?

Not sure - I was just trying to get $100 for bb.   

 

[Terminalxylem]

I know that, I’m just drinking three Floyd’s and like to unhinge the left.  I know he can’t be the president.

Why do you like to “unhinge the left”? If you want people to reach across the aisle, why taunt the opposition?

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I'm not saying you were trolling with your comment so I'm not really answering your question - but, as an aside I do think you troll folks on the right.  I don't really care but then again I'm not a mod and don't have to clean up things.  You're obviously a smart guy and I think I end up agreeing with several of your positions but your posting style is just begging to get TOs.  Just stating my observation.

Specifically on the death topic though - there's been numerous times where I was going to say something in the ballpark of what was discussed by Todd - but I know Joe wouldn't want that discussion so I avoid it.

As for biggie - wasn't a joke, I was just saying if you thought it was worthy to give the money to BigBottoms charity.

FWIW I looked up charities with links to Biggie Smalls!

 

[Rich Conway]

As for biggie - wasn't a joke, I was just saying if you thought it was worthy to give the money to BigBottoms charity.

This is the charity to which he is referring:  https://chanceforhopefoundation.org/

 

[FairWarning]

Why do you like to “unhinge the left”? If you want people to reach across the aisle, why taunt the opposition?

Actually just the crazies from the far left.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes

https://www.newsweek.com/georgia-begins-investigating-allegations-paying-college-football-players-1574655

Yup. And I've wondered what would happen if Musk did the same thing or way more for Texas. 

 

[massraider]

Twitter filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Elon Musk after the billionaire backed out of a $44 billion deal to buy the embattled social media company.

Musk agreed in April to buy Twitter but he filed papers Friday with the SEC to walk away from the acquisition agreement as now a court in Delaware may decide whether he has to buy the company which has seen its stock and reputation plummet 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/tech/2022/07/12/twitter-sues-elon-musk-terminate-deal/10043111002/

 

[BladeRunner]

Twitter filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Elon Musk after the billionaire backed out of a $44 billion deal to buy the embattled social media company.

Musk agreed in April to buy Twitter but he filed papers Friday with the SEC to walk away from the acquisition agreement as now a court in Delaware may decide whether he has to buy the company which has seen its stock and reputation plummet 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/tech/2022/07/12/twitter-sues-elon-musk-terminate-deal/10043111002/

That's simply fantastic!   

But, it never had much of a reputation to begin with so they really aren't losing out on that front.

Now, time to kill all other social media platforms.

 

[massraider]

Twitter filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Elon Musk after the billionaire backed out of a $44 billion deal to buy the embattled social media company.

Musk agreed in April to buy Twitter but he filed papers Friday with the SEC to walk away from the acquisition agreement as now a court in Delaware may decide whether he has to buy the company which has seen its stock and reputation plummet 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/tech/2022/07/12/twitter-sues-elon-musk-terminate-deal/10043111002/

https://twitter.com/sarahfrier/status/1546973859248685056?t=6cHiHI7E5uOl3NQIDFbLVg&s=19

"Wow, Twitter says Musk asked for Twitter board's emails and text messages related to bots, "highly unusual requests in the context of good faith efforts toward completion of any merger transaction, and absurd in the context of this one, which has no diligence condition"

 

[massraider]

Elon has also responded in kind to Trump, the flame war between then has begun. 

Dang coastal elites. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's the complaint.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22084453-twittermuskcomplaint

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Here's the complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22084453-twittermuskcomplaint

This is kind of like watching a trainwreck for most of us outsiders, but you have to feel bad for Twitter employees and of course shareholders. There's really no good solution to this mess.

 

[massraider]

Twitter alleges that Musk "mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play" but then "unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law" thinks he "is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away." https://t.co/AhdqUez2ix

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The complaint is very well written and easy for non-lawyers to understand. Recommended reading.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think it’s just a question of how much Musk is going to owe them. He really has no legal leg to stand on.

The other question is: does the SEC investigate the possibility that Musk really just used Twitter as an excuse to liquidate Tesla stock? 

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

Trump with a couple of good zingers.

Musk builds rocketships to nowhere and driverless cars that crash

 

[LawFitz]

After this post I posted another reply in the context of the discussion that read:

This post got me a 5 week suspension from the boards.  The @FBG Moderator asked me to "stop the condescending trolling if you come back."

If anyone can provide a reasonable explanation of who this somewhat hyperbolic (but not overly so!) criticism of the Court was condescendingly trolling, I will give $100 to the charity of your choice.

@Joe Bryant, you'd asked me why I thought you didn't like me. Others have asked why I left the first time. Hopefully this answers both questions. You gave guys who made a string of racist jokes about Native Americans in an Elizabeth Warren thread 12 hour bans and allowed a running thread of people insulting your fellow FBGs and their trans children to go on for months, and you gave me 5 weeks for ... honestly I'm not sure what.

I'm just getting caught up with this thread and seeing your post now. Here's my guess...

It wasn't the mention of liberal justices dying that set @Joe Bryant off, but rather your implication - even as you dismiss it as hyperbole - of the modern-day Right being racist and segregationist. I could see why he'd be annoyed by such an implication.

HTH

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I'm just getting caught up with this thread and seeing your post now. Here's my guess...

It wasn't the mention of liberal justices dying that set @Joe Bryant off, but rather your implication - even as you dismiss it as hyperbole - of the modern-day Right being racist and segregationist. I could see why he'd be annoyed by such an implication.

HTH

Thanks. That makes sense, I suppose, at least as a possible rationale. It obviously makes no sense as a moderation policy. The idea that we're not even allowed to broadly and indirectly imply something that most people, including academics and even members of the GOP, understand to be true and will state explicitly, is just completely absurd, especially considering some of the more direct and hateful stuff aimed at other groups that is permitted around here.

I would be curious to hear from @FBG Moderator about this. Maybe there's something in my post that was troll-y, condescending or otherwise objectionable that I'm not seeing? If so I'd like to know so I can adjust accordingly! Some sort of board ombudsman would be a great add.

Anyway, I'm a man of my word, and I appreciate the effort. Does a donation to bigbottom's charity work for you too?

 

[LawFitz]

Thanks. That makes sense, I suppose, at least as a possible rationale. It obviously makes no sense as a moderation policy. The idea that we're not even allowed to broadly and indirectly imply something that most people, including academics and even members of the GOP, understand to be true and will state explicitly, is just completely absurd, especially considering some of the more direct and hateful stuff aimed at other groups that is permitted around here.

I would be curious to hear from @FBG Moderator about this. Maybe there's something in my post that was troll-y, condescending or otherwise objectionable that I'm not seeing? If so I'd like to know so I can adjust accordingly! Some sort of board ombudsman would be a great add.

Anyway, I'm a man of my word, and I appreciate the effort. Does a donation to bigbottom's charity work for you too?

Where in those links you posted does it mention segregation?

No worries on the donation, but if you do want to do so, whichever charity is fine.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Where in those links you posted does it mention segregation?

No worries on the donation, but if you do want to do so, whichever charity is fine.

They mention white nationalism and white supremacy, which overlap substantially with white separatism.

I'm not sure why it matters, though.  Are you saying that the mods banned me because I used obvious hyperbole to joke that racist people might also favor segregation?  That seems difficult to believe.

Anyway, I appreciate the effort by you and others to explain. Donation made,

 

[Battersbox]

They mention white nationalism and white supremacy, which overlap substantially with white separatism.

I'm not sure why it matters, though.  Are you saying that the mods banned me because I used obvious hyperbole to joke that racist people might also favor segregation?  That seems difficult to believe.

Anyway, I appreciate the effort by you and others to explain. Donation made,

I don't know if it was fair for them to ban you or not. But, I do know that it's unseemly for you or anyone to think you are the arbiter of who/what is racist and who/what isn't. 

For me it's the other side of the same coin of those far-right nutjobs who label everyone a pedo.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I don't know if it was fair for them to ban you or not. But, I do know that it's unseemly for you or anyone to think you are the arbiter of who/what is racist and who/what isn't. 

For me it's the other side of the same coin of those far-right nutjobs who label everyone a pedo.

Huh?  Where did I say I was the arbiter?  I expressed my opinion, as one does on a political message board. It just so happens that my opinion has an extensive amount of support from others, including academics and even some members of the organization that I was calling racist.  If anyone disagrees with me they are welcome to engage and I would be happy to do so.

Also, accusing someone of being discriminatory based on skin color and accusing someone of being a pedophile aren't even in the same universe, even before we get to the veracity of each claim. Practicing pedophilia lands you in prison. Practicing racism lands you in the White House.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Anyway, back on topic. I would like to thank Elon Musk for demonstrating once again that there is basically zero correlation between extraordinary wealth and broader intelligence.

 

[Battersbox]

Huh?  Where did I say I was the arbiter?  I expressed my opinion, as one does on a political message board. It just so happens that my opinion has an extensive amount of support from others, including academics and even some members of the organization that I was calling racist.  If anyone disagrees with me they are welcome to engage and I would be happy to do so.

Also, accusing someone of being discriminatory based on skin color and accusing someone of being a pedophile aren't even in the same universe, even before we get to the veracity of each claim. Practicing pedophilia lands you in prison. Practicing racism lands you in the White House.

You implied that members of the Supreme Court are at heart super racists. You know very well there are many members of this board who likely consider those Justices fine examples of great Americans. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not--when you say SC justices are racists the slippery slope toward those who venerate those same justices must also be racists is quite apparent. 

I only chimed in because I was directly involved in the conversation when you got banned. If you believe anyone who supports Justice Thomas and that wing of the Supreme Court are racists you're entitled to your opinion. But in other instances you've taken liberties by implying posters in here are racists due to their opinions, and the leaps in logic have been quite large. As an example off the top of my head, you implied that people who admire Musk and Trump but have disdain for Soros and Zuckerberg are anti-semites, without a lick of support for that claim. It's just my opinion, but when you state explicitly or even just imply people are racist they are likely to get upset with you, especially if you don't bring receipts. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

You implied that members of the Supreme Court are at heart super racists. You know very well there are many members of this board who likely consider those Justices fine examples of great Americans. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not--when you say SC justices are racists the slippery slope toward those who venerate those same justices must also be racists is quite apparent. 

I only chimed in because I was directly involved in the conversation when you got banned. If you believe anyone who supports Justice Thomas and that wing of the Supreme Court are racists you're entitled to your opinion. But in other instances you've taken liberties by implying posters in here are racists due to their opinions, and the leaps in logic have been quite large. As an example off the top of my head, you implied that people who admire Musk and Trump but have disdain for Soros and Zuckerberg are anti-semites, without a lick of support for that claim. It's just my opinion, but when you state explicitly or even just imply people are racist they are likely to get upset with you, especially if you don't bring receipts. 

Dude, I used (moderate) hyperbole to make a joke. Relax. I never said anything remotely resembling "anyone who supports Justice Thomas and that wing of the Supreme Court are racists."  Please don't put words in my mouth.

Speaking of that ... everything I've said in this thread since then has been accurate and defensible IMO. If you want to take issue with something I've said elsewhere, find it and I'll be more that happy to discuss what I said and even apologize if it's warranted. I'm not gonna argue with you here and now about things you recall me saying somewhere else in the past. For one thing, I'd need to see what I actually said before I can defend it.

 

[Battersbox]

Just recently there's been this weird trend I'm noticing among conservatives- some billionaires (Elon Musk, Trump, Kochs) are awesome saviors who will do right by us all, while other billionaires (Soros, Zuckerberg, "Wall Street Bankers") are the devil incarnate.

I wonder, what's the difference between these two groups? Surely there is there some common characteristic we can identify that all the "bad" rich guys share and the "good" rich guys do not? Hopefully we can sort it out soon.

Well, we can certainly drop it. But I was referring to your post in this very thread. The one where you used the cutesy bolded letters to label posters you disagree with anti-semites.

Look, you asked for why a moderator might be upset with you. Posts like the quoted are probably a pretty good hint.

 

[That one guy]

Oh c’mon, we already done this once!  He’s clearly gearing up for run at presidency against Trump, isn’t he?!

ETA…I know he can’t actually qualify, doesn’t mean he won’t try anyway 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Well, we can certainly drop it. But I was referring to your post in this very thread. The one where you used the cutesy bolded letters to label posters you disagree with anti-semites.

Look, you asked for why a moderator might be upset with you. Posts like the quoted are probably a pretty good hint.

That post (also very obviously meant to simply be an amusing jibe, not a serious accusation) notes a pattern among "some conservatives."  I don't think it's outrageous to imply that some conservatives are anti-semites. Hell, it's probably more outrageous to imply that none are.  Regardless, I didn't even mention posters, so I'm not sure where you got the notion that I was labeling any of them as anything.

FWIW I also didn't ask why a moderator might be upset with me. I asked why a specific post earned me a ban and whether anyone could tell me who I was trolling or condescending to, which was supposedly the reason I was banned.

I don't remember much about you from back in the day, but from my limited interactions with you recently I found you to be thoughtful and reasonable. To that end I would really appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth so I can continue chatting. Among other reasons, there's just no need for it- if you stick around long enough I'll probably say something that upsets people without any need for editorializing 

 

[Battersbox]

That post (also very obviously meant to simply be an amusing jibe, not a serious accusation) notes a pattern among "some conservatives."  I don't think it's outrageous to imply that some conservatives are anti-semites. Hell, it's probably more outrageous to imply that none are.  Regardless, I didn't even mention posters, so I'm not sure where you got the notion that I was labeling any of them as anything.

FWIW I also didn't ask why a moderator might be upset with me. I asked why a specific post earned me a ban and whether anyone could tell me who I was trolling or condescending to, which was supposedly the reason I was banned.

I don't remember much about you from back in the day, but from my limited interactions with you recently I found you to be thoughtful and reasonable. To that end I would really appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth so I can continue chatting. Among other reasons, there's just no need for it- if you stick around long enough I'll probably say something that upsets people without any need for editorializing 

Ok. I agree the specific post didn't feel ban-worthy to me, which is why I was offering my take on why it may have been more of a mosaic-theory type of infraction. 

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

I think it’s just a question of how much Musk is going to owe them. He really has no legal leg to stand on.

The other question is: does the SEC investigate the possibility that Musk really just used Twitter as an excuse to liquidate Tesla stock? 

You know that scene in the movie Vacation after they get the car fixed in the desert? The mechanics are the Twitter board and Musk is Clark. 

 

[bigbottom]

I hope this dispute gets settled quickly and Musk refocuses his attention on space exploration, mobility advancements and other technical achievements that have nothing to do with social media platforms. 

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

I hope this dispute gets settled quickly and Musk refocuses his attention on space exploration, mobility advancements and other technical achievements that have nothing to do with social media platforms. 

Amen to that 

 

[joffer]

Who had Elon’s dad fathering kids with his stepdaughter in the pool?

 

[massraider]

Who had Elon’s dad fathering kids with his stepdaughter in the pool?

These Muskies aren't fooling around about populating the Earth. 

 

[massraider]

https://hard-drive.net/opinion-elon-musk-not-buying-twitter-is-genius-unless-he-does-buy-it-then-that-was-the-right-move/

Opinion: Elon Musk Not Buying Twitter Is Genius, Unless He Does Buy It, Then That Was the Right Move

Wow. Mr. Musk has done it again. He could smell the blood in the water in that awful Twitter deal and dipped right after creating a good amount of chaos in the system like the hilarious troll he is. Twitter is a cesspool of an app that was just trying to milk the real-life Tony Stark out of a few billion. Even though that’s pennies for Elon, he’s not going to let some evil corporation sneak a bunch of bots past him, he’s much too smart for that. Did they really think they could outfox the clean energy king? 

Shutting down the Twitter deal was one of the shrewdest, brilliant business moves in the last decade. He wakes up and grinds so hard every day, and did the research to figure out Twitter was dead on arrival. I can’t think of a more genius play than dropping the mic on this crooked, bot-ridden “social media” app. 

Unless he does end up buying it. 

If he does end up buying it, I’m astounded at what a revolutionary, game-changing business deal Mr. Musk made by purchasing one of the most successful, engaging media platforms in existence. 

If Elon buys Twitter, you’re an idiot if you think it wasn’t a perceptive, savvy business play that is just the first step in a master plan real-life Tony Stark is cooking up behind the scenes. He just said he was backing out like the hilarious troll he is, and he knew he was pwning all those idiot libs who think he didn’t know exactly what he was doing. 

Twitter is essentially a mirror image of our society, where all the greatest minds come in unison to philosophize on the great questions of life. In many ways, Twitter is akin to the modern salon, and Elon is a genius for working to preserve the sanctity of speech on this platform, assuming it turns out that he does want to buy it.

You may say he was “legally bound” to buy Twitter in the end, but that’s just what he wants you sheep to think. If he buys Twitter, he’s the wisest move any other businessman wouldn’t have the balls to pull off. He was probably just lowering the interest in Twitter by trying to pull out only to swoop in as a hero at the eleventh hour. Business king.

And if he gets sued and loses millions, oh boy. That’s truly the smartest move of all when you think about it.

 

[massraider]

SEC steps up scrutiny over Musk comments on $44 bln Twitter deal

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-sec-sends-letter-musk-over-tweets-44-bln-twitter-deal-2022-07-14/?taid=62d0b9bff0954100015c8c76&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[Mister CIA]

Over/Under: $10,000,000,000 settlement?

Over, by the slightest of margin.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Over/Under: $10,000,000,000 settlement?

Over, by the slightest of margin.

That seems like a pretty sharp number. I wouldn’t touch it, but gun to my head I’d take the under. 
 

 

[massraider]

Over/Under: $10,000,000,000 settlement?

Over, by the slightest of margin.

Over. 

He's in a spot of bother here. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My guess would be something like $4B-$5B.

Whatever the number is, it will be material to Twitter's financial results, so it won't be confidential.

 

[jon_mx]

Over/Under: $10,000,000,000 settlement?

Over, by the slightest of margin.

Closer to zero than $10B.

 

[massraider]

Two of the podcasts I follow covered this lawsuit. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pctKdfYYhkVIpgdgSQaw4?si=eMeN4xp8Q-mwRmNuCF3soA&utm_source=copy-link

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pctKdfYYhkVIpgdgSQaw4?si=eMeN4xp8Q-mwRmNuCF3soA&utm_source=copy-link

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Two of the podcasts I follow covered this lawsuit. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pctKdfYYhkVIpgdgSQaw4?si=eMeN4xp8Q-mwRmNuCF3soA&utm_source=copy-link

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pctKdfYYhkVIpgdgSQaw4?si=eMeN4xp8Q-mwRmNuCF3soA&utm_source=copy-link

Levine's coverage on this has been consistently excellent - in Bloomberg but also available via email sub.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Two of the podcasts I follow covered this lawsuit. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pctKdfYYhkVIpgdgSQaw4?si=eMeN4xp8Q-mwRmNuCF3soA&utm_source=copy-link

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0pctKdfYYhkVIpgdgSQaw4?si=eMeN4xp8Q-mwRmNuCF3soA&utm_source=copy-link

Here's the episode from my favorite legal podcast:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5iTyLLvv0JxL6sU1t1c3Pv

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

Over. 

He's in a spot of bother here. 

I agree, Twitter doesn't have to take anything less than what he offered.  Now, it could take millions of dollars and years in court to get it but Musk doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  The rumors I'm hearing is Twitter could offer him a discount from his original offer to expedite the deal.  I guess we'll see. 

No matter how it turns out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, I feel sorry for all of the employees of Twitter that he trashed.

 

[LawFitz]

The rumors I'm hearing is Twitter could offer him a discount from his original offer to expedite the deal. 

I think this is the mostly likely course. Deal gets done somewhere closer to $40-45 per share.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I agree, Twitter doesn't have to take anything less than what he offered.  Now, it could take millions of dollars and years in court to get it but Musk doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  The rumors I'm hearing is Twitter could offer him a discount from his original offer to expedite the deal.  I guess we'll see. 

No matter how it turns out, I don't have a dog in this hunt, I feel sorry for all of the employees of Twitter that he trashed.

In opposing specific performance, he has a leg to stand on. He's probably the favorite to prevail on that point. (At the end of the podcast I linked to earlier, the hosts said that normally someone in Musk's position would have a better than 99% chance of avoiding specific performance. But in this case, everything possible is lined up against him and in Twitter's favor, so Musk has more like an 80% of prevailing on that point.)

Edit: But obviously Twitter won't accept less than Musk offered. I think he's offered zero so far, but he is hoping, in the best case scenario for him, to pay $1 billion.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's how it will go.

Twitter is suing, saying "Musk needs to pay us $54.20 a share, and he can have the whole company."

Musk will answer: "No way. Those guys breached first. If anything, they owe me money for all the time I spent trying to hand-count all the bots!"

When the laughing dies down, Musk will fall back to: "I have a right to terminate and just pay the $1 billion fee."

Twitter will counter: "Musk breached in six different material ways before he tried to terminate (and he did it in public, here are the receipts), so he forfeited his right to terminate by paying the fee."

Musk will counter that even if that's true, he shouldn't be forced to pay $44 billion and own a company he doesn't want. Instead, he should pay a lesser amount and let Twitter shareholders keep all their shares.

Then they'll settle on some amount significantly above a billion as a compromise.