Comment by parl_match
6 days ago
> You were using it in the general sense
no, i wasn't. i am telling you i wasn't and i have already told you i wasn't. how many more times do you need to be told?
> unless you believe the "extensive road safety laws and civil liability precedent" only apply to Tesla branded Robotaxis
i was talking about tesla robotaxis, sure.
please quote me where i said that it only applies to them. otherwise, you're making shit up in your head and accusing me of it :)
> no, i wasn't. i am telling you i wasn't and i have already told you i wasn't.
Due to your poor writing, what you intended to write and what you actually wrote were different. Though you still don't appear to understand what you wrote, I am now satisfied you made the error unintentionally. Hope this gives you peace.
I do understand that there was minor ambiguity, but many people were able to understand what i was talking about (and upvoted me accordingly) without issue. I think that your interpretation is poor. Your failing is that you assumed the worst interpretation, and then attacked over a statement that made no sense to you without asking for clarification.
in addition, i made it explicitly clear to you MULTIPLE times what i was talking about, and you still struggled with resolving the ambiguity.
please count how many times i repeated it to you, and use that to inform your own knowledge of your limitations to absorb new information
anyways it's clear that this conversation is at an end, so i will let you have the last word, if you wish.