This has been directly refuted by the Tesla board, who even told the reporters that it wasn’t true when they were asked before the article was published……then they published it anyway and didn’t include the boards comments lol
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.
What we call “JoUrNaLiStS” these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok’d it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla’s board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a “JoUrNaLiSt” who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn’t just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the “guilty until proven innocent” category, because that’s essentially what you’re saying here - you’re asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren’t doing it you then don’t believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla’s stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
I hope they’re not lying with the denial. If he stays, it’ll drive left wingers to other options, increasing competition. And it might even drive right wingers to start buying EVs in quantity. 😁
This has been directly refuted by the Tesla board, who even told the reporters that it wasn’t true when they were asked before the article was published……then they published it anyway and didn’t include the boards comments lol
Source on that? Just to corroborate
https://x.com/tesla/status/1917812113315074055
When Tesla wins a civil suit about this story, then I’ll believe they’re not lying.
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.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
What we call “JoUrNaLiStS” these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok’d it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla’s board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a “JoUrNaLiSt” who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn’t just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the “guilty until proven innocent” category, because that’s essentially what you’re saying here - you’re asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren’t doing it you then don’t believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla’s stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
We don’t want Murdoch back btw.
I hope they’re not lying with the denial. If he stays, it’ll drive left wingers to other options, increasing competition. And it might even drive right wingers to start buying EVs in quantity. 😁