Are you trying to argue that the CEO doesn't influence his company? Especially a CEO with almost no oversight from his board? A CEO who commits heinous immoral acts? When we're discussing whether the company was deceptive?
That's quite a stretch. You see it, right?
It's a shame you're refusing relevant information. Head in sand is not a good look.
I didn't say it proved anything. But it raises the chances significantly. If this were a normal company, with a normal reputation, I wouldn't even raise the possibility. Given the situation - come on.
Are you trying to argue that the CEO doesn't influence his company? Especially a CEO with almost no oversight from his board? A CEO who commits heinous immoral acts? When we're discussing whether the company was deceptive?
That's quite a stretch. You see it, right?
It's a shame you're refusing relevant information. Head in sand is not a good look.
We're saying, simply, that the CEO being personally odious doesn't mean the car is fake.
> doesn't mean
I didn't say it proved anything. But it raises the chances significantly. If this were a normal company, with a normal reputation, I wouldn't even raise the possibility. Given the situation - come on.
Surely you agree. Please tell me yes.
> Are you trying to argue that the CEO doesn't influence his company?
No
> No
Good!
Would you agree that he makes decisions for the company?
Like, for example, the decision to make a misleading demo? Would that be something the CEO would control?
I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this horrible man doesn't decide what goes into his company's demos. Please explain if I am incorrect.
16 replies →