Elon Musk agrees to proceed with Twitter acquisition at original price

Status
Not open for further replies.

captaincranky

Posts: 19,147   +8,297
I mistyped Amazon while I was walking and typing on my phone, but in context anyone could clearly see it was a mistake. There is no need for your snarky response.
Yes there was a definite need for a "snarky response". My suggestion would be avoid multitasking. IE: Walking and talking at the same time. You don't appear that proficient at it.

In this "context", we're expected to willingly endure your endless, and tedious, harangue, regarding legal minutiae, without complaint or rebuttal. No thanks. Hard pass. Full stop
The whole point of me saying it’s all his fault is in response to you saying he “inadvertently” walked into anything.
Next comes your semantic crap fest. I debated very deeply on a personal level, whether to use the adverb, "inadvertently", or another, "unwittingly" I chose the former, since it was already typed, and as a bonus, spelled correctly.

All your BS is based on your tedious, single minded approach as to whether or not, "Musk had 'A' plan", when he tried to back out of the deal. So, I have, (quite thoughtfully, if I do say so myself), summed up the entirety of Musk's legal quagmire, by referring to it as , "a tar pit" Since "tar pit" is obviously metaphoric in nature, perhaps I should have expanded on it thus:

"Musk chased his prey (Twitter) into what appeared to be a tranquil, (legal), pond and suddenly realized that he was, in fact, trapped in a tar pit".

Musk very definitely had, "a plan", both when he made the offer, and later when he tried to back out of it.
Unfortunately for him, the latter was based on faulty legal strategy

His "plan" when he made the offer:
1: Primarily for publicity, but also as a means to flaunt his massive wealth.
2: To cover up reason 1 (one), by dangling "free speech", (and the possibility of revoking Trump's permanent ban), as bait, in an attempt to draw alienated users back to the platform.

Generally speaking, more HUMAN users, should mean more income via ad revenue. Hence his preoccupation with "removing bots", since advertisers won't pay for that section of a, "user base".

As a footnote,, I have no further wish to discuss this matter with such a "formidable" intellect as yours.

Accordingly, I'm off to do some rather pedestrian chores, such as feeding my cats, and doing the dishes.

In the meantime, perhaps you could do some research and hopefully learn to differentiate, "Amazon", from, "Twitter".


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.