The Unofficial "Elon Musk trying to "Save Everyone" from Themselves (except his Step-Sister)" Thread...

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

Right? This is whole thing is a show, and has not baring on the transaction. 

 

Twitter has every right to hold him to his purchase agreement. His best case scenario is that he only has to pay the one billion dollar termination agreement, and that's only if twitter agrees to it. I hope they hold him to it. 

wonder if the sec will ever get enough together to show that musk took his crypto price manipulation to the stock market, and really just wanted to push up the stock price then exit his holdings with tons of money. 
 

cause he has been doing that with crypto. 
 

Instead the market collapsed, Tesla is running into trouble, and he’s on the hook for a company worth significantly less than he bid on it (currently) 😂 

[GoCommiesGo]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

wonder if the sec will ever get enough together to show that musk took his crypto price manipulation to the stock market, and really just wanted to push up the stock price then exit his holdings with tons of money. 
 

cause he has been doing that with crypto. 
 

Instead the market collapsed, Tesla is running into trouble, and he’s on the hook for a company worth significantly less than he bid on it (currently) 😂 

 

I doubt the SEC will ever have the power to really punish him. But the interesting side is he may put the nail in the coffin for crypto regulation. 

 

The Tesla stock drop is interesting in the short term, but realistically he's already made a killing on it and this has little effect on him. The question is when does it become enough of a negative for the other investors? Is there a point where his foot in mouth becomes a net negative? I'm not sure there really is, at least until the point where they face real large scale competition. 

[mistertim]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

😂 

waived due diligence on a 40+ billion dollar transaction 

😂 

 

Breaking: Local dip**** does a dip**** thing and is surprised by less than optimal result

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

 

 

Is this one better?

 

BBC - Elon Musk threatens to walk away from Twitter deal

 

I guess only a court can side. The article doesn’t say Elon gave up his rights to due diligence. It says Twitter says Elon gave up his rights to due diligence.

 

If I was Twitter, I would say the same thing. Musk has got to be surrounded by lawyers so I find their claims somewhat suspicious. 
 

I think it’s funny people here have “found Twitter The Immaculate” like a convict finding Jesus….

Edited June 7, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[mistertim]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I guess only a court can side. The article doesn’t say Elon gave up his rights to due diligence. It says Twitter says Elon gave up his rights to due diligence.

 

If I was Twitter, I would say the same thing. Musk has got to be surrounded by lawyers so I find their claims somewhat suspicious. 
 

I think it’s funny people here have “found Twitter The Immaculate” like a convict finding Jesus….

 

Musk also does whatever he wants, seems to think he's infallible, and is surrounded by people who probably tell him he's infallible. It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if we found out that he regularly disregards the advice of lawyers and others.

 

And Twitter isn't "immaculate" in the least, but it sounds like they've been way more level headed and diligent in this process than Musk has. He's mostly been flying by the seat of his pants...on a $40 billion deal. 

 

Given how this whole thing has played out, I absolutely would believe that Twitter has been more comprehensive and that Musk did give up some rights of due diligence in his rush to make this deal (and/or make headlines).

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if we found out that he regularly disregards the advice of lawyers and others.

 

His advisors and whatnot have to be pissed. He offered to buy Twitter for like three times it's values. That's why he's trying to get out of the deal now with the bots excuse methinks. 

[GoCommiesGo]

36 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I guess only a court can side. The article doesn’t say Elon gave up his rights to due diligence. It says Twitter says Elon gave up his rights to due diligence.

 

If I was Twitter, I would say the same thing. Musk has got to be surrounded by lawyers so I find their claims somewhat suspicious. 
 

I think it’s funny people here have “found Twitter The Immaculate” like a convict finding Jesus….

 

I tend to believe Twitter versus Musk. I say that because they haven't been raging like an old man trying to return soup to a deli. 

 

I don't think anyone finds any corporation to be immaculate, what I do think is that a company that is not acting like a petulant child is more believable. Said company also has a pretty good understanding of what the purchase agreement is. 

 

Also, find me one legitimate article that says he did not give up due diligence. Hell, as far as I can see he hasn't even tried to counter the due diligence claim. 

 

Again, old man returning soup to a deli. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

 

Also, find me one legitimate article that says he did not give up due diligence.

 

your asking me to prove a negative.
 

I’m not surprised the media isn’t saying he didn’t give up due diligence. But the media isn’t saying  he did either.

 

What they are saying is Musk has demanded proof of Twitter’s claim and that Twitter has  responded by saying Musk gave up his due diligence. That’s it.
 

And I would suggest that since Twitter is claiming Musk gave up his right to due diligence that probably means Twitter cannot give the proof Musk wants. 
 

But this is all a guess, and that’s all any of you can do. But you’ve just decided to hold Twitter innocent for some reason, and I would suggest those reasons are beyond the merits of this particular case.

 

11 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

Hell, as far as I can see he hasn't even tried to counter the due diligence claim. 

 

I would suggest that demanding that Twitter give him proof regarding the bots or else he would pull out of the deal is him countering the due diligence claim by action.

Edited June 7, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[GoCommiesGo]

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

your asking me to prove a negative. I’m not surprised the media isn’t saying he didn’t give up due diligence. But they aren’t saying he did either. What they are saying is Musk has demanded proof of Twitter claim and that Twitter has claimed Musk gave up his due diligence. That’s it. And I would suggest that since Twitter is claiming Musk gave up his right to due diligence that probably means Twitter cannot give the proof Musk wants. 

 

No I'm asking you to show me something, anything that would dispute the claim. Musk hasn't even disputed the claim, all he has done is shout BOTSSSSSSS. 

 

BECAUSE, he gave up due diligence twitter only has to provide whatever minimal information they have to. They've provided the same information they provide in their SEC filings. They are under no obligation to do anything further. 

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I would suggest that demanding that Twitter give him proof regarding the bots or else he would pull out of the deal is him countering the due diligence claim by action.

 

That's not the same thing, it's not even in the same arena. One party wanting something is not the same as that party having a legal obligation to the information. I would say him yelling BOTS is further proof that he did give up his right to due diligence. If he had the right he wouldn't need to keep shouting it on Twitter. He would have direct access to the information and not be demanding it in public. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by GoCommiesGo

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I would suggest that demanding that Twitter give him proof regarding the bots or else he would pull out of the deal is him countering the due diligence claim by action.

 

No, that's him being a carnival barker and screaming at the clouds. In fact, he's probably doing all this public stuff precisely because he knows he gave up his due diligence rights by rushing into the whole deal.

 

If he truly wanted more assurances and the deal was still in the due diligence phase, that could all be done easily in private. But he's taking it all public because he's trying to create a narrative and shift public opinion, probably ahead of him trying to pull out of the deal without financial penalties.

 

I think the long story short is: he rushed into a huge deal head first and eyes shut, probably disregarded advice from others, and got himself into something he now doesn't want to be in anymore and he's flailing around trying to find a way out.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

 

That's not the same thing, it's not even in the same arena. One party want something is not the same as that party having a legal obligation to the information. I would say him yelling BOTS is further proof that he did give up his right to due diligence. If he had the right he wouldn't need to keep shouting it on Twitter. He would have direct access to the information and not be demanding it in public. 

Thank you for your thots about the subject.  But I disagree. He can’t force Twitter to give him proof they don’t have themselves, which is why they are saying he gave up his due diligence.  Because they know if he didn’t the deal can’t go through, and they want it to go through.
 

He is demanding due diligence and they are saying he waved his due diligence.  There is no way for an outside party to know with certainty what the contract says. 

 

I’m not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

 

I think the long story short is: he rushed into a huge deal head first and eyes shut, probably disregarded advice from others, and got himself into something he now doesn't want to be in anymore and he's flailing around trying to find a way out.

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph, but I also doubt twitters account. I doubt he gave up the right to due deligence and I doubt they proved their bot claim.

Edited June 7, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[GoCommiesGo]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I’m not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

 

We are not going to agree, and that's okay. 

 

In closing, my point is that if he had the right to due diligence he wouldn't need to be asking for the information in public. He would have the legal right to examine whatever portion the would need, say the actual data, algorithms and user information. The simple fact he is demanding the information shows the he does not have the right to the information. 

 

From what you have said, you are a business owner.

 

If someone where to buy your business under a normal contract that person would have the rights to access your books, inventory and anything specifically associated with your business. Perhaps, patents, data, buildings and other pieces. They would have the right to certify the information you provided with their own independent review prior to finalizing the purchase.

 

But, If that someone decided to offer you three times your value, without any independent review you would probably be pretty happy. If said person later decided they made a mistake they act the way Musk is acting, making up any reason to be able to walk from the deal. 

 

That's my take. We disagree, it's all good.  

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph, but I also doubt twitters account. I doubt he gave up the right to due deligence and I doubt they proved their not claim.

 

The problem is that Musk hasn't really even disputed Twitter's claim that he gave up his due diligence rights in his rush to make the deal.

 

If I was in this situation and I knew I hadn't given up my due diligence rights on a deal but the other party said I had, I wouldn't be screaming about it on Twitter and in the news. I would immediately tell my legal team to prepare a huge lawsuit and sic them on the the company in question...because I'd know I'm right and I have the law behind me.

 

That's why I say I think the fact that he's yelling about it in public means he knows very well that in his head first rush he gave up a lot of rights for due diligence. Again, Twitter is far from immaculate but they've clearly been dealing with this situation with much more deliberation and care than Musk has. So I'm inclined to believe them over him here.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Just now, GoCommiesGo said:

 

We are not going to agree, and that's okay. 

 

In closing, my point is that if he had the right to due diligence he wouldn't need to be asking for the information in public. He would have the legal right to examine whatever portion the would need, say the actual data, algorithms and user information. The simple fact he is demanding the information shows the he does not have the right to the information. 

 

He doesn’t have to demand the information publicly. But there is nothing preventing him from doing so. Maybe he wants to make Twitter look stupid. Or make them to publicly acknowledge they are full of bots. He has options. This is what he chose. It doesn’t mean anything, really.

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[mistertim]

If Jeanine Pirro agrees with anything you say, it's time to reevaluate your entire life.

[tshile]

7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The article doesn’t say Elon gave up his rights to due diligence. It says Twitter says Elon gave up his rights to due diligence.

Fair point. 

 

[tshile]

@CousinsCowgirl84  @mistertim

id like to add, in regards to this idea “Twitter is just saying something” but that no one is reporting that he actually gave it up, I believe the context of the release was as a public company, releasing information important to the potential sale of the company, publicly as they are required. They’re required to inform that this deal is still locked in, if they indeed have it locked in. It’s a publicly traded company. 
 

now that wouldn’t be publicly normally because all the other crap wouldn’t be public normally so the deal would be hammered out and then released when it was ready. Instead one party is a child so they have to reinsure their investors that silly man is going to pay this or at least give us 1 billion for ****ing around. 
 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

@CousinsCowgirl84  @mistertim

id like to add, in regards to this idea “Twitter is just saying something” but that no one is reporting that he actually gave it up, I believe the context of the release was as a public company, releasing information important to the potential sale of the company, publicly as they are required. They’re required to inform that this deal is still locked in, if they indeed have it locked in. It’s a publicly traded company. 

They are offering their opinion on the matter. What their opinion is and what reality is might be different. Twitter has every interest in taking the position that Elon gave up his rights to due diligence.  
 

Companies routinely offer up their opinion on things and then later it turns out they were wrong. Look up any patent dispute for instance. 
 

I think you’re being a little too creative in your attempts to make Twitter the victim here…

Edited June 8, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think your being a little to creative in your attempts to make Twitter the victim here…

Honestly I was just trying to point out that while I agree with your position, I think you’re overselling it a bit. 
 

Of course Twitter could be wrong. Or just lying. I don’t think you’re wrong on the possibility at all. As you said, it happens all the time. Look at our football team 😂 

 

I think in the overall context of who’s done what and said what. Remember this started with it supposedly not be what Twitter wanted but they had to do it for the share holders. I seem to even recall Musk publicly bulling them about feduciary responsibility. 
 

im sorry but every single step of this screams that the most likely scenario is that Twitter is not lying (or wrong.)
 

which is not to be mistaken to mean it’s not possible they are lying (or wrong)

Also as far as being the victim let me add that musk has done what’s referred to as a hostile takeover. And he’s done it publicly. 
 

Twitter is a victim. And it’s legally ok because that’s how capitalism works. Doesn’t mean that the very notion of what a hostile takeover is goes out the window. It’s in the phrase. 
 

and I don’t shed a tear for Twitter about it. They knew the rules of the game they decided to play. 

[Fergasun]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/twitter-board-tells-elon-musk-we-will-not-alter-the-deal/

 

This article from a few weeks ago seems to have all the right information. I don't know what the issue is... maybe Musk thinks that Twitter won't take him to court to force the deal or that the Twitter stock price he was buying at was low.  

 

And below a more recent article with an actual lawyer being quoted.

 

https://qz.com/2174898/inside-elon-musks-legal-strategy-for-ditching-his-twitter-deal/

 

[mistertim]

9 hours ago, Fergasun said:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/twitter-board-tells-elon-musk-we-will-not-alter-the-deal/

 

This article from a few weeks ago seems to have all the right information. I don't know what the issue is... maybe Musk thinks that Twitter won't take him to court to force the deal or that the Twitter stock price he was buying at was low.  

 

And below a more recent article with an actual lawyer being quoted.

 

https://qz.com/2174898/inside-elon-musks-legal-strategy-for-ditching-his-twitter-deal/

 

 

So it definitely sounds like buyer's remorse and Musk would have to prove that Twitter wasn't providing enough info to him, and that that info would be key to his debt financing fully coming through. Sounds like that lawyer thinks it will be a very uphill battle.

[88Comrade2000]

Elan, Elan, Elan baby. Elan all the time. Elan will buy Google next.Then buy the Commanders and rename the team, the Teslas. The new stadium; a shrine to the greatness of Elan; will be shaped like a Tesla. The logo will be Elan on a Tesla. Elan will demand that only Tesla vehicles be allowed to be parked at the s stadium lot.

The fight song, will be about Elan.

 

Elan, will announce the team is relocating to Mars.

[TheDoyler23]

28 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Elan, Elan, Elan baby. Elan all the time. Elan will buy Google next.Then buy the Commanders and rename the team, the Teslas. The new stadium; a shrine to the greatness of Elan; will be shaped like a Tesla.

 

I've had the same visions of the Washington Primes in the newly constructed Amazon Centre - a beige box shaped translucent dome with a big blue ribbon over the top. 

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

After a weeks-long impasse, Twitter’s board plans to comply with Elon Musk’s demands for internal data by offering access to its full “firehose,” the massive stream of data comprising more than 500 million tweets posted each day, according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the state of negotiations.

 

 The move aims to end a standoff with the billionaire, who has threatened to pull out of his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter unless the company provides access to data he says is necessary to evaluate the number of fake users on the platform. 

 

The information could be provided as soon as this week, the person said. Currently some two dozen companies pay for access to the trove, which comprises not only a real-time record of tweets but the devices they tweet from, as well as information about the accounts that tweet.

Dog catches car again