FreedomAdvocate

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.

Cool, and do you know that the ones that this new process is going to use aren't mental health professionals? The change is specifically so untrained police officers with guns aren't being sent in to mental health emergencies because they acknowledge that they are not what is needed.

Ok so it's not manufactured by the government or anything, it's just rich people manipulating markets like they always do and always will?

Cool, so you found what.....6 people who might possibly be gay or like some strange stuff? And that then means that all "right-wingers" are the same? So if I was to find say 6 instances of a left-winger being a pedo, does that mean that all left-wingers are pedos?