Search results

Watching your descent from attempted arguments to playground tactics is quite something. 'It's a finding of fact. They were lied to, end of story.' Perfect example of circular reasoning: How do we know they were lied to? Because it's a finding of fact. Why is it a finding of fact? Because they...

When you can't engage with arguments about institutional investor capability and corporate governance, call for censorship? At least others attempt arguments, however circular. Your circular reasoning has reached parody levels: 'Why were they lied to?' Because the judge said so. 'Why did the...

When you can't address arguments about institutional investor capability and fiduciary duties, resort to cryptic references. At least the pony comment was more straightforward. 'The ones where they were lied to?' Once again, circular reasoning: They were lied to because the judge said so, and...

sigh, Your position has devolved to: 'It doesn't matter that sophisticated investors with direct access and extensive legal departments reached a different conclusion - because the judge said the statements were misleading.' Let's examine your circular logic: Why were the statements...

This wall of text perfectly demonstrates what happens when substantive arguments fail. You pivot from process arguments ('the court can't assume') to personal attacks ('bootlick', 'rando', 'stan', 'debate bro') while still avoiding the core question. How did sophisticated institutions with...

Nothing says 'I've run out of actual points to make' quite like calling for cartoon horses. Amazing how you can delete a comment calling for 'tactical ponies' only to replace it with more deflection. And now I'm a 'resident clown' for pointing out that institutional investors with fiduciary...

Amazing how you 3 can simultaneously complain about staying on topic while making partisan jokes, accuse others of derailing while adding nothing substantive, and plead with people to stop engaging while... actively engaging. The psychological projection is fascinating - you're doing exactly...

Coming from someone who's contributed nothing but accusations and one-liners to this discussion, your comment about 'willful ignorance' is particularly ironic. The pattern is telling: When faced with specific questions about institutional investor capability and fiduciary duties, you resort to...

Once again, you're demonstrating exactly the circular reasoning I've been pointing out: 'The judge found they were lying, therefore they were lying.' You keep referencing the ruling without addressing the core question: How did major institutional investors with extensive legal departments...

And yet here you are, still unable to answer basic questions about institutional investor capability while resorting to playground-level retorts. You claim 'multiple people have pointed out where I'm wrong' but when asked specific questions about how sophisticated investors with extensive legal...

Calling for others to ignore arguments while being unable to ignore them themselves. Does that come from your need to maintain status within the echo chamber? When group identity becomes tied to certain beliefs, challenging those beliefs triggers defensive responses aimed at protecting both...

Your '49 comments' obsession and complaints about 'volume of text' while writing a lengthy multi-quote response is quite something. But more importantly, you're still avoiding the central question: How did sophisticated institutional investors with extensive legal departments miss this allegedly...

No, we're at the point where you're all pretending not to understand the argument.

This actually highlights tension in your position: You recognize that Vanguard has a fiduciary duty to make independent decisions rather than blindly following proxy advisor recommendations - yet you're upset they exercised that independent judgment here. Major institutional investors often...

Ironic that you're accusing others of 'robot-like patterns' while following the exact echo chamber script: can't address arguments? Call them a bot. Can't engage with substance? Announce you're blocking them. Can't refute points? Claim they were 'refuted days ago' without specifics. It's...

You're inadvertently making my point about substantive engagement. The 9 shares matter because these lawyers claimed to be protecting shareholders while overriding those same shareholders' informed decisions. My account age has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. And speaking of...

I find it fascinating how quickly some resort to account age when they can't engage with the actual arguments. My points about institutional investor capability, board independence assessment, and corporate governance principles stand or fall on their own merits - not on how long I've been...

Your 'objection: relevance' analogy actually proves my point. The relevance of institutional investor due diligence isn't some obscure fact that needed to be introduced into evidence - it's directly related to the core issue of whether shareholders were capable of making an informed decision...

Your argument actually reveals something interesting about your position. You're claiming that because Tesla's lawyers didn't explicitly present evidence about institutional investor due diligence, we should ignore the reality of how these institutions operate and what their votes represent...

You're still missing the core argument while misrepresenting my position. I never said it's 'disturbing' that courts can overturn fraudulent actions. What I said was it's disturbing to override informed shareholder decisions when sophisticated institutional investors - after reviewing all...