Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[Shooter McGavin 618]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

In twitter technical news, Elon claims he is getting rid of bots, but I’m not sure that’s true:  I first signed up for twitter over a year ago but eventually deleted it because I was spending too much time there (probably should do the same here and may as a New Year’s resolution, but I digress), but then re-signed up a few months back.   i really only read and never tweeted much, and the first go round I think I had like 20 followers including a couple bots.  This time around, I’ve only tweeted once so far (on a random crime post a few weeks ago), and in the past 2 days, I’ve been followed by like 60 Chinese bots.

Chinese bots have run rampant the past month, drowning out tweets about protests with spam and chil pron in an attempt to silence the protesters.  Twitter can't do anything because they fired all the people in charge of stopping it.

[TimHauck 2,738]

 

 

[jerryskids 6,736]

18 hours ago, dogcows said:

Remember Musk whining that he was being stalked because his jet was doxxed?

Hmm, the real story is coming out, and of course it’s not what Musk claimed. SHOCKER!

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-20/south-pasadena-police-investigate-alleged-assault-elon-musk-security

 

 

13 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Lol.  If Musk was a lib, this thread would be flooded with quotes like “another ‘conspiracy theory’ proven true!!!!”

Instead, they’ve all ignored this.  I thought the video of the alleged “attacker” was odd, he seemed awfully calm for someone that allegedly “jumped on the hood of the car looking for Elon.”  I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if he (or Sweeney for that matter) might have a possible defamation case.

I see your lol and raise you a lolzr$#@!

If someone on team Musk is lying about the incident, do you think it was Musk himself or the driver?

Also there is the problem of the actual content of your link:

Quote

Musk posted an image on Twitter of a man sitting in a car; a ski mask obscured the man’s face. He later identified himself as Brandon Collado and shared a clip of him engaging with Musk’s security person, according to the Washington Post. “I am the guy in the video,” he wrote in response to the clip. Collado could not be reached for comment Tuesday by The Times.

Collado made bizarre, unsubstantiated claims to the Post, including that musician Grimes was sending him coded messages through her Instagram. The confrontation on Dec. 13 unfolded not far from the home of the 34-year-old singer, whose real name is Claire Boucher. She is the mother of two of Musk’s children. Collado told the Post that he worked as an UberEats delivery person and was in the area for that purpose.

The Los Angeles Police Department‘s Threat Management Unit, which investigates stalking incidents and often handles celebrity stalker cases, is examining allegations that an individual has been stalking the singer, according to law enforcement sources familiar with the work. Grimes has been previously targeted by a stalker. In 2018, she was granted a restraining order against a man named Raymond Barrajas, who claimed she was secretly communicating with him through her music.

Yep, sounds like a dood just hanging out at the gas station like any other normal person.   

[Reality 3,121]

14 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

I see your lol and raise you a lolzr$#@!

If someone on team Musk is lying about the incident, do you think it was Musk himself or the driver?

Also there is the problem of the actual content of your link:

Yep, sounds like a dood just hanging out at the gas station like any other normal person.   

Every time...

[dogcows 1,030]

18 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

I see your lol and raise you a lolzr$#@!

If someone on team Musk is lying about the incident, do you think it was Musk himself or the driver?

Also there is the problem of the actual content of your link:

Yep, sounds like a dood just hanging out at the gas station like any other normal person.   

No doubt there was something weird with that guy. But also no doubt this had nothing to do with his jet being tracked, since it wasn’t him, and was nowhere near an airport. And also, his security people are weird for following the guy off the freeway and confronting him. What was the point of that? Seems like a road rage incident more than anything.

None of the journalists he banned nor the Elon Jet guy had anything to do with this. Musk can ban whoever he wants, but I can also call .

[Hardcore troubadour 15,282]

2 minutes ago, Reality said:

Every time...

They seem to have a problem with fathers protecting their children. It’s weird. Too masculine I guess. 

[TimHauck 2,738]

23 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

I see your lol and raise you a lolzr$#@!

If someone on team Musk is lying about the incident, do you think it was Musk himself or the driver?

Also there is the problem of the actual content of your link:

Yep, sounds like a dood just hanging out at the gas station like any other normal person.   

I’m not sure where the lie originated, but when Musk tweets it out as fact he becomes responsible for it being true, and there appear to be several things he was wrong or at best misleading about:

1) If it occurred near her home, that is more evidence that it likely had nothing to do with the plane being tracked (which we already knew of course)

2) If this is the dude who was stalking her, seems odd that both Musk’s team would not file a report about that particular incident and the “stalker” would be the one to file the police report  (and post a video about it) and thus open himself up to questioning, but if he’s a crazy person I guess it’s possible.

3) The stalker (whether or not it was this guy), was targeting Grimes, not Musk (Musk’s tweet said the car was being followed because they thought it was him).  I guess the righties here will claim he said that intentionally to “protect” his baby momma

[jerryskids 6,736]

8 minutes ago, dogcows said:

No doubt there was something weird with that guy. But also no doubt this had nothing to do with his jet being tracked, since it wasn’t him, and was nowhere near an airport. And also, his security people are weird for following the guy off the freeway and confronting him. What was the point of that? Seems like a road rage incident more than anything.

None of the journalists he banned nor the Elon Jet guy had anything to do with this. Musk can ban whoever he wants, but I can also call .

If Musk has said there is a direct link between the Elonjet and this guy, then I agree there seems no relationship.  I never thought that was the case, but I didn't follow it that quickly.

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’m not sure where the lie originated, but when Musk tweets it out as fact he becomes responsible for it being true, and there appear to be several things he was wrong or at best misleading about:

1) If it occurred near her home, that is more evidence that it likely had nothing to do with the plane being tracked (which we already knew of course)

2) If this is the dude who was stalking her, seems odd that both Musk’s team would not file a report about that particular incident and the “stalker” would be the one to file the police report and thus open himself up to questioning, but if he’s a crazy person I guess it’s possible.

3) The stalker (whether or not it was this guy), was targeting Grimes, not Musk (Musk’s tweet said the car was being followed because they thought it was him).  I guess the righties here will claim he said that intentionally to “protect” his baby momma

Tim, make sure you stretch out your quads before you back track this quickly.  

[Reality 3,121]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They seem to have a problem with fathers protecting their children. It’s weird. Too masculine I guess. 

It is very odd, of course, they are consumed and broken. Normal folks see it.

[TimHauck 2,738]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

If Musk has said there is a direct link between the Elonjet and this guy, then I agree there seems no relationship.  I never thought that was the case, but I didn't follow it that quickly.

 

Forgot to add in the prior post that at this point it also seems unlikely the dude climbed on the hood, which is what reminded me of the Smollett incident 

[Sean Mooney 1,970]

Elon either created a lie or participated in continuing a lie.

 

I guess we aren't allowed to call that out now because Elon is "Owning libs!."

Cool stuff

[craftsman 1,045]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Elon either created a lie or participated in continuing a lie.

 

I guess we aren't allowed to call that out now because Elon is "Owning libs!."

Cool stuff

What lie did he create or participate in?

[RLLD 4,201]

11 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Elon either created a lie or participated in continuing a lie.

 

I guess we aren't allowed to call that out now because Elon is "Owning libs!."

Cool stuff

If a guy can "feel" like a woman then why would it not be true that Elon can "feel" threatened....

[Strike 5,445]

22 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

Forgot to add in the prior post that at this point it also seems unlikely the dude climbed on the hood, which is what reminded me of the Smollett incident 

There is nothing in that tweet that suggets the Elonjet guy was behind the incident with Musk's child.  Musk is just saying that due to the incident with his child he is going after anyone who participates in doxxing, which in his opinion includes ElonJet guy.  That seems pretty evident to me from reading the tweets.  It's funny how you require an actual notarized letter from Twitter executives to believe they worked with law enforcement to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, but here you make a connection that pretty obviously doesn't exist from this incident.

[TimHauck 2,738]

13 minutes ago, craftsman said:

What lie did he create or participate in?

That someone followed a car thinking it was him, at minimum. Probably more than that.

[TimHauck 2,738]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

There is nothing in that tweet that suggets the Elonjet guy was behind the incident with Musk's child.  Musk is just saying that due to the incident with his child he is going after anyone who participates in doxxing, which in his opinion includes ElonJet guy.  That seems pretty evident to me from reading the tweets.  It's funny how you require an actual notarized letter from Twitter executives to believe they worked with law enforcement to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, but here you make a connection that pretty obviously doesn't exist from this incident.

Interesting use of the word “suggests.”  He is most certainly “suggesting” it, albeit maybe not saying it directly.  Although if he is admitting that Sweeney had nothing to do with this incident, then he is also admitting he has no legal case because he wouldn’t be able to prove damages

[craftsman 1,045]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That someone followed a car thinking it was him, at minimum. Probably more than that.

So someone did something and.... Probably what?

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Interesting use of the word “suggests.”  He is most certainly “suggesting” it, albeit maybe not saying it directly.  Although if he is admitting that Sweeney had nothing to do with this incident, then he is also admitting he has no legal case because he wouldn’t be able to prove damages

1)  No he's not suggesting it.  He's suggesting he is now going to do whatever he needs to do to protect his family.

2)  You apparently have no clue how our legal system works.  Taking legal action does not mean suing someone or having them arrested.  It could be a restraining order or other types of legal action that don't require actual damages.  Or is it your position that someone being stalked has no recourse until harm comes to them?  Don't be stupid.  That being said, I don't think Musk took any legal action of any kind.  But the great thing about our country is that he can say almost whatever he wants.  That's called free speech.  So you got him there.  He made a statement in the moment that is probably not true.  I guess you won?

[TimHauck 2,738]

16 minutes ago, Strike said:

1)  No he's not suggesting it.  He's suggesting he is now going to do whatever he needs to do to protect his family.

2)  You apparently have no clue how our legal system works.  Taking legal action does not mean suing someone or having them arrested.  It could be a restraining order or other types of legal action that don't require actual damages.  Or is it your position that someone being stalked has no recourse until harm comes to them?  Don't be stupid.  That being said, I don't think Musk took any legal action of any kind.  But the great thing about our country is that he can say almost whatever he wants.  That's called free speech.  So you got him there.  He made a statement in the moment that is probably not true.  I guess you won?

1.  Well he literally said “Sweeney supported harm to his family”, so he’s certainly at least implying some culpability there

2. OK Mr. Semantics Jr.  (Horseman probably owns the crown in that regard), sure maybe “legal action” just means a cease and desist order or something, you got me.  But when people say “legal action” they’re usually referring to a lawsuit of some sort.  And I didn’t even say that Musk’s family even had no “harm,” just that it wasn’t caused by Sweeney 

Yes, Musk has said multiple things “in the moment that are probably not true.”  Such as being a “free speech absolutist.”  Hence  calling out the literal fact that he’s a hypocrite.

[Strike 5,445]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

1.  Well he literally said “Sweeney supported harm to his family”, so he’s certainly at least implying some culpability there

2. OK Mr. Semantics Jr.  (Horseman probably owns the crown in that regard), sure maybe “legal action” just means a cease and desist order or something, you got me.  But when people say “legal action” they’re usually referring to a lawsuit of some sort.  And I didn’t even say that Musk’s family even had no “harm,” just that it wasn’t caused by Sweeney 

Yes, Musk has said multiple things “in the moment that are probably not true.”  Such as being a “free speech absolutist.”  Hence  calling out the literal fact that he’s a hypocrite.

1)  No he didn't.  And let me caution you that when you put something in quotes you're saying that what is in those quotes was literally said by the person.  Nowhere in any of hist tweets did Musk say the words you put in quotes above in that order.  Just stop.  You're implying a meaning to his sentence that doesn't exist.

2)  it's not semantics.  A legal action is NOT just a lawsuit, and when someone says they're taking legal action it does NOT just mean lawsuit.  Just stop.

[TimHauck 2,738]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

1)  No he didn't.  And let me caution you that when you put something in quotes you're saying that what is in those quotes was literally said by the person.  Nowhere in any of hist tweets did Musk say the words you put in quotes above in that order.  Just stop.  You're implying a meaning to his sentence that doesn't exist.

2)  it's not semantics.  A legal action is NOT just a lawsuit, and when someone says they're taking legal action it does NOT just mean lawsuit.  Just stop.

So you think in saying:

”Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family”

he’s not including Sweeney as “supporting harm to his family”

?

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, TimHauck said:

So you think in saying:

”Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family”

he’s not including Sweeney as “supporting harm to his family”

?

I will gladly answer that, but only after you acknowledge that what I responded to, that you put in quotes, was not an accurate quote.  You tacitly acknowledge this in this post because you're basically rewriting the sentence how you WANT it to read.  But that's not the quote.  And that's important.  You can't "quote" people and then not put in the quote what they actually said.  Do you understand that?

[TimHauck 2,738]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

I will gladly answer that, but only after you acknowledge that what I responded to, that you put in quotes, was not an accurate quote.  You tacitly acknowledge this in this post because you're basically rewriting the sentence how you WANT it to read.  But that's not the quote.  And that's important.  You can't "quote" people and then not put in the quote what they actually said.  Do you understand that?

JFC, I had literally just posted the whole quote.  He was talking about 2 sets of people, I removed 1 and left the other words in the same order.   Do you not think he was referring to Sweeney as “supporting harm to his family”?  

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, TimHauck said:

JFC, I had literally just posted the whole quote.  He was talking about 2 sets of people, I removed 1 and left the other words in the same order.   Do you not think he was referring to Sweeney as “supporting harm to his family”?  

Dude, language matters.  You can't quote someone and then bastardize the quote.  That's not how it works.  Unless you acknowledge that I'm done.

[TimHauck 2,738]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Dude, language matters.  You can't quote someone and then bastardize the quote.  That's not how it works.  Unless you acknowledge that I'm done.

I agree.  I just don’t think removing the words “& organizations” bastardizes the quote.  I’m sorry you got triggered about it though, I’ll keep that in mind in the future.

[Strike 5,445]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I agree.  I just don’t think removing the words “& organizations” bastardizes the quote.  I’m sorry you got triggered about it though, I’ll keep that in mind in the future.

Any change to an actual quote is bastardizing it.  And yes, in this case it MAY have changed the meaning of the quote.  Here is the actual quote:

Quote

Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family.

The way the english language works this COULD mean that he is taking legal action against Sweeney with no reason given and ALSO taking legal action against organizations who supported harm to his family.  If you're not sure about my interpretation ask an English teacher.  So yes, your "quote" potentially altered the meaning of the sentence. 

[TimHauck 2,738]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Any change to an actual quote is bastardizing it.  And yes, in this case it MAY have changed the meaning of the quote.  Here is the actual quote:

The way the english language works this COULD mean that he is taking legal action against Sweeney with no reason given and ALSO taking legal action against organizations who supported harm to his family.  If you're not sure about my interpretation ask an English teacher.  So yes, your "quote" potentially altered the meaning of the sentence. 

My English teacher would also tell Musk it was poor sentence structure as it can easily be interpreted as Sweeney being included in that statement.  

[TimHauck 2,738]

I’m sorry @Strike, I shouldn’t have said “literally said.”   But again, I had just posted the whole tweet a couple posts up…

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, TimHauck said:

My English teacher would also tell Musk it was poor sentence structure as it can easily be interpreted as Sweeney being included in that statement.  

We can discuss how perfect Musk's sentence was.  Notice I said what it COULD mean.  I am not asserting that is what he DID mean.  Unlike you, who CHANGED the quote to try to make it mean what YOU WANTED it to mean.  By this post, I assume you acknowledge that what I posted is a valid POTENTIAL meaning of the quote. 

[Strike 5,445]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I’m sorry @Strike, I shouldn’t have said “literally said.”   But again, I had just posted the whole tweet a couple posts up…

I'm not piling on but please don't even put something in quotes that isn't exactly what was said.  Even if you didn't say literally putting something in quotes says it's literally what that person said.  And there's no reason not to quote someone accurately other than to change the meaning of the quote.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,282]

Mistaken 

[Strike 5,445]

Can we cut Musk some slack on his wording?  As an African American, Ebonics is his first language.  He's an ESL speaker.

[TimHauck 2,738]

12 minutes ago, Strike said:

I'm not piling on but please don't even put something in quotes that isn't exactly what was said.  Even if you didn't say literally putting something in quotes says it's literally what that person said.  And there's no reason not to quote someone accurately other than to change the meaning of the quote.

What if I added three periods and said “Sweeney…supported harm to my family”? Acceptable or no?

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, TimHauck said:

What if I added three periods and said “Sweeney…supported harm to my family”? Acceptable or no?

Just post the entire quote FFS.  What is wrong with you?

[TimHauck 2,738]

Just now, Strike said:

Just post the entire quote FFS.  What is wrong with you?

Just trying to save some time really 

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Just trying to save some time really 

Did you type the quote out?  ROFLMAO. 

[Horseman 2,438]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Just trying to save some time really 

So you can get that post count in?  Because we all know you don't have anything better to do.

[listen2me 23 1,858]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Just trying to save some time really 

I laughed.  Thats hilarious.   

[Strike 5,445]

Just now, listen2me 23 said:

I laughed.  Thats hilarious.   

Yeah.  It takes more time to edit a quote than to simply copy and paste it.  He's just making up excuses now to try to avoid the obvious reason he edited the quote - to change it's meaning to benefit him.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,282]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Just trying to save some time really 

Ok, this should be it. Any of you still taking this clown seriously can stop now. Complete jackass.