In other hostile takeover Tweets...
-
@Polygeekery said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I do not see how this could ever be argued to be less damage than he could cause.
Some judge might buy into the idea that Elon is looking to shut it down (which is what ultimately happened in the 80's to a lot of firms that were taken over hostily). They might also get some traction with him wanting to do a 180 on their policies, which undoubtedly would cause a lot of people to leave twitter.
I think with a sympathetic judge they could make enough of a case that it would stand. I don't think it should mind you, but I think it can.
-
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
It might not be. IANAL, but it is my understanding that for this to stand in court they have to prove that this action will cause less harm to ALL twitter investors than Musks buyout option.
It's easier to just assume that if the person (real or fictitious) that does it is rich, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal because there will be no consequences.
To that end, I don't understand why the globalist human trafficking rings are so hush hush. What are average people going to do about them? Write their congressman?
-
@Tatoun said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Arantor I agree and as a long time lurker with no access to the garage, I am a bit pissed, I actually liked these discussions
If you want to join the Garage (or lurk there), you can join the Trolleybus Garage Mechanics group.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Carnage Well, Meta is working on that all by themselves. They decided that Apple's 30% cut was inappropriate for Meta goods.
So they're charging 47.5%.
Meta strikes against 30% 'App Store tax' by charging 47.5%
Fees for sellers of virtual goods in Horizon Worlds will be almost half of sale price
Worked for youtube when they were the only game in town. They lost a lot of very profitable niches by driving off gaming, music and podcasts. It’s dying a slow death now slowing leeching life away from alphabet.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@Carnage Well, he's certainly made noises about doing it because of moderation. Which would set Twitter on course for being Parler 2.0.
Abused by Amazon?
To be fair if I was Amazon I would have shitcanned Parler. I probably would shitcan most social media sites too. They’re more trouble than they’re worth. Twitch is probably more trouble than it’s worth too. The concept is simple. Sit there and play games or paint figurines and even that throws up a gigantic clusterfuck every other week.
-
@Polygeekery said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
It might not be. IANAL, but it is my understanding that for this to stand in court they have to prove that this action will cause less harm to ALL twitter investors than Musks buyout option.
I do not see how this could ever be argued to be less damage than he could cause. ISTR that the poison pill strategy from the 80's was to sell retained stock owned by the company and that it was done so on the open market. Part of the value that corporate raiders looked for was large amounts of retained (therefore restricted) stock. Not all stock has voting rights and I'm doubting that Twitter has enough retained stock on their balance sheet to do this. So I'm going to assume that they are proposing pure stock dilution.
This strategy they propose of summoning stock from thin air and refusing to sell it to Musk would cause massive damage to all of their stockholders and not selling to all existing shareholders equally seems illegal.
That's what I meant. I'm sure they have their army of lawyers try and make it bulltet-proof, and there's the "well, should've read the fine print" due diligence mentioned above, but as a normal small-fish shareholder you buy some stock with the expectation that they're worth the shares you bought and not suddenly get diluted into "sorry, we're doubling the amount of shares".
Also, if you ran by the "rational market" hypothesis, then the current stock price reasonably reflects what twitter is worth. He offered 30% more than the stock was trading for on April 1st. The stock immediately jumped to reflect that, but stayed below that price. As a shareholder, I would thus either like to sell to him at a profit or think it's still undervalued at that price and buy even more. If the whole market thought that way, the price would rise above his offer and he couldn't buy.
So I don't see how preventing him from paying this much extra benefits the average shareholder.@Zenith said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
It's easier to just assume that if the person (real or fictitious) that does it is rich, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal because there will be no consequences.
Also what I said earlier about Musk, completely independent of any "censorship" issues with twitter, that he just does whatever he wants and can get away with it. Whenever he breaks any regulations he just laughs it off.
-
@dkf said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Or extracted as a thread for people who prefer it that way.
Definitely. While an interesting read in itself (especially for the omg censorship people), it's ironic that the only sane way to read something on this "social network" that's supposed to be sold at $50bn is to use an external reader.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Polygeekery said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Dragoon said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
I am amazed (or more like shocked) that this is legal.
It might not be. IANAL, but it is my understanding that for this to stand in court they have to prove that this action will cause less harm to ALL twitter investors than Musks buyout option.
I do not see how this could ever be argued to be less damage than he could cause. ISTR that the poison pill strategy from the 80's was to sell retained stock owned by the company and that it was done so on the open market. Part of the value that corporate raiders looked for was large amounts of retained (therefore restricted) stock. Not all stock has voting rights and I'm doubting that Twitter has enough retained stock on their balance sheet to do this. So I'm going to assume that they are proposing pure stock dilution.
This strategy they propose of summoning stock from thin air and refusing to sell it to Musk would cause massive damage to all of their stockholders and not selling to all existing shareholders equally seems illegal.
That's what I meant. I'm sure they have their army of lawyers try and make it bulltet-proof, and there's the "well, should've read the fine print" due diligence mentioned above, but as a normal small-fish shareholder you buy some stock with the expectation that they're worth the shares you bought and not suddenly get diluted into "sorry, we're doubling the amount of shares".
The actual mechanics of how this works are that the shareholders elected the board because they trusted the board not to fuck them by acting against their interests. But hold that thought.
Also, if you ran by the "rational market" hypothesis, then the current stock price reasonably reflects what twitter is worth. He offered 30% more than the stock was trading for on April 1st. The stock immediately jumped to reflect that, but stayed below that price. As a shareholder, I would thus either like to sell to him at a profit or think it's still undervalued at that price and buy even more. If the whole market thought that way, the price would rise above his offer and he couldn't buy.
So I don't see how preventing him from paying this much extra benefits the average shareholder.For the little guy, it doesn't.
But in this case, "acting rationally" doesn't line up with "acting in your economic self interest."
Musk wants to own Twitter because he wants to set a different ideological direction for the company. The current board can't say this, but they want to keep Musk out to maintain the current ideological direction.
Neither side is actually acting on "what's going to increase the share price more," which is usually what the rational market is supposed to do.
Yes, Twitter's poison pill plan will fuck the little guy. They always do, which is why they have that name. The board's bet is that among current shareholders, there's enough people invested in the company's current ideological direction that they'll be allowing to get away with it.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Yes, Twitter's poison pill plan will fuck the little guy. They always do, which is why they have that name. The board's bet is that among current shareholders, there's enough people invested in the company's current ideological direction that they'll be allowing to get away with it.
Twitter's poison pill fucks everyone, which is the point of a poison pill. Musk would have to pay a lot more money to acquire Twitter. Twitters board members would have to pay a lot of money to try not to get acquired. Small shareholders now own less of the company than they originally thought, which tanks the share price.
The only people who can possibly win are the board (by buying a bunch of shares at half off, and selling for ~40% over current price), and even then, it's only if Musk charges ahead and throws another couple of bales of cash onto the purchase. And there's a real risk that the board members could get some large loans for such a "guaranteed" payout, so the number of shares increases in a nigh-unlimited way.
-
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Yes, Twitter's poison pill plan will fuck the little guy. They always do, which is why they have that name. The board's bet is that among current shareholders, there's enough people invested in the company's current ideological direction that they'll be allowing to get away with it.
Twitter's poison pill fucks everyone, which is the point of a poison pill. Musk would have to pay a lot more money to acquire Twitter. Twitters board members would have to pay a lot of money to try not to get acquired. Small shareholders now own less of the company than they originally thought, which tanks the share price.
The only people who can possibly win are the board (by buying a bunch of shares at half off, and selling for ~40% over current price), and even then, it's only if Musk charges ahead and throws another couple of bales of cash onto the purchase. And there's a real risk that the board members could get some large loans for such a "guaranteed" payout, so the number of shares increases in a nigh-unlimited way.
But if this sudden increase in stock tanks the price hard enough, Elon might even be able to buy cheaper. Also, the board are not allowed more than 15% each, so they have a cap on their share. How many board members are there?
-
@Carnage said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Yes, Twitter's poison pill plan will fuck the little guy. They always do, which is why they have that name. The board's bet is that among current shareholders, there's enough people invested in the company's current ideological direction that they'll be allowing to get away with it.
Twitter's poison pill fucks everyone, which is the point of a poison pill. Musk would have to pay a lot more money to acquire Twitter. Twitters board members would have to pay a lot of money to try not to get acquired. Small shareholders now own less of the company than they originally thought, which tanks the share price.
The only people who can possibly win are the board (by buying a bunch of shares at half off, and selling for ~40% over current price), and even then, it's only if Musk charges ahead and throws another couple of bales of cash onto the purchase. And there's a real risk that the board members could get some large loans for such a "guaranteed" payout, so the number of shares increases in a nigh-unlimited way.
But if this sudden increase in stock tanks the price hard enough, Elon might even be able to buy cheaper. Also, the board are not allowed more than 15% each, so they have a cap on their share. How many board members are there?
Twitter lists 11. Since Elon had the largest lump of shares at 9%, I foolishly assume that about half of Twitter's stock is scattered among people who are not the board. So if the board has 50%, and is allowed to buy up to a total of 165% (of pre-dilution counts), that's serious dilution, but not beyond-Musk's-capability dilution. The total stock would be just over double the original stock, so Musk's offer would have to roughly double.
(I have no idea what it means if Musk makes an offer at ~50, the board dilutes to the maximum extent possible, and then Musk makes an offer at ~25. Ten seconds before Musk's second offer, Twitter's value would likely still be above 25 per share, just because it takes some nonzero amount of time for share prices to crash after the board pulls the trigger on the poison pill.)
-
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Carnage said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Yes, Twitter's poison pill plan will fuck the little guy. They always do, which is why they have that name. The board's bet is that among current shareholders, there's enough people invested in the company's current ideological direction that they'll be allowing to get away with it.
Twitter's poison pill fucks everyone, which is the point of a poison pill. Musk would have to pay a lot more money to acquire Twitter. Twitters board members would have to pay a lot of money to try not to get acquired. Small shareholders now own less of the company than they originally thought, which tanks the share price.
The only people who can possibly win are the board (by buying a bunch of shares at half off, and selling for ~40% over current price), and even then, it's only if Musk charges ahead and throws another couple of bales of cash onto the purchase. And there's a real risk that the board members could get some large loans for such a "guaranteed" payout, so the number of shares increases in a nigh-unlimited way.
But if this sudden increase in stock tanks the price hard enough, Elon might even be able to buy cheaper. Also, the board are not allowed more than 15% each, so they have a cap on their share. How many board members are there?
Twitter lists 11. Since Elon had the largest lump of shares at 9%, I foolishly assume that about half of Twitter's stock is scattered among people who are not the board. So if the board has 50%, and is allowed to buy up to a total of 165% (of pre-dilution counts), that's serious dilution, but not beyond-Musk's-capability dilution. The total stock would be just over double the original stock, so Musk's offer would have to roughly double.
(I have no idea what it means if Musk makes an offer at ~50, the board dilutes to the maximum extent possible, and then Musk makes an offer at ~25. Ten seconds before Musk's second offer, Twitter's value would likely still be above 25 per share, just because it takes some nonzero amount of time for share prices to crash after the board pulls the trigger on the poison pill.)
The market price would be adjusted based on the dilution basically immediately, almost the same as a stock split or a dilution by stock dividend. After all, the posted price is really a pair of prices the market maker will accept (depending on if you’re buying from him or selling to him) and that will get adjusted immediately when the news becomes public.
-
Both Elon Musk AND Jack Dorsey slam Twitter's board as it adopts "poison pill" strategy to keep Elon at bay
Once upon a time (on Saturday), the founder of a job board site tweeted out this satirical post poking fun at the weenies on Twitter's board:
-
'It's consistently been the dysfunction of the company': Twitter cofounder Jack Dorsey appears to call out his social media platform's board
"Are you allowed to say this?" one user tweeted. "No," Dorsey replied.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
"Are you allowed to say this?" one user tweeted. "No," Dorsey replied.
What?
The original "poison pill" article said the board voted unanimously. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should've voted against!
-
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
if the board has 50%
But they don't. Not counting Dorsey, who owns just over 2.25%, the entire board combined owns 0.1%, with the largest single ownership stake at 0.063%. The board has no personal financial stake in the company's performance.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@PotatoEngineer said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
if the board has 50%
But they don't. Not counting Dorsey, who owns just over 2.25%, the entire board combined owns 0.1%, with the largest single ownership stake at 0.063%. The board has no personal financial stake in the company's performance.
Okay, then the board goes from owning ~3% to 165%, which makes Elon have to pony up an additional ~1.5x of his original bid. Assuming the board members are willing to take enormous loans to buy that stock, and assuming they can get the loans. (I'm guessing they can, but since there's risk that the stock might drop below 50% of its pre-dilution price, they might have to put up more collateral that they don't want to risk.)
-
@PotatoEngineer
The typical construction and point of poison pills like this is to allow all current stockholders to maintain their ownership percentage with the discounted purchases (or share dividend) while diluting only the percentage of the corporate raider.In practice, this discounted option to buy is likely to also screw small individual shareholders who may not be following things closely enough or have the financial wherewithal to exercise their purchase option in time, but at least the big institutional investors will keep their ownership percentage and get a nice little instant capital gain due to purchasing at a discounted price, so they’ll be fat and happy and keep voting for the current board (in theory. That is, after all, the board’s end goal with a poison pill.)
It will almost certainly not involve the board members spending any of their own money to defend against losing their jobs. Nor will they be able to dramatically increase their ownership stake in the company, since that would be an egregious violation of their fiduciary duty so severe that even a bought and paid for court would have to take notice.
-
@izzion said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@PotatoEngineer
The typical construction and point of poison pills like this is to allow all current stockholders to maintain their ownership percentage with the discounted purchases (or share dividend) while diluting only the percentage of the corporate raider.In practice, this discounted option to buy is likely to also screw small individual shareholders who may not be following things closely enough or have the financial wherewithal to exercise their purchase option in time, but at least the big institutional investors will keep their ownership percentage and get a nice little instant capital gain due to purchasing at a discounted price, so they’ll be fat and happy and keep voting for the current board (in theory. That is, after all, the board’s end goal with a poison pill.)
It will almost certainly not involve the board members spending any of their own money to defend against losing their jobs. Nor will they be able to dramatically increase their ownership stake in the company, since that would be an egregious violation of their fiduciary duty so severe that even a bought and paid for court would have to take notice.
I completely misread the poison pill. I thought that only the board of directors could buy more stock, for some dumb reason. Getting the actual shareholders to do all the dirty work sounds much more board-of-director-y. I made the terrible assumption that "shareholder rights plan" was some weird double-speak.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@HardwareGeek said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
"Are you allowed to say this?" one user tweeted. "No," Dorsey replied.
What?
The original "poison pill" article said the board voted unanimously. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should've voted against!I've seen situations‡ where "unanimous" is taken to mean "without dissent," regardless of absent or abstaining voting members. I'm not sure how that aligns with the legal definition, though.
‡ Specifically, in congregational church business meetings, where votes are cast and counted by raised hands.
-
@topspin Alternatively, the bum from the street that stands in as a body double for "jack
" didn't remember what he was supposed to do.
-
Musk says Twitter board will be paid nothing if he acquires the company
Currently, Twitter spends about $2.9 million in cash and stock awards to board members.
-
@topspin That's such a good way to get the board on your side.
-
@dkf said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin That's such a good way to get the board on your side.
It seems to me the board has already declared total war against Musk, so...
-
@dkf said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin That's such a good way to get the board on your side.
He's arguing that the interests of board and shareholders are not aligned.
Compare to Tesla where Musk was paid zero dollarydoos in cash and $30 fucking billion in stock options for 2021.
-
Elon Musk is exploring whether to commence a tender offer for Twitter, according to a new securities filing.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@dkf said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin That's such a good way to get the board on your side.
He's arguing that the interests of board and shareholders are not aligned.
Compare to Tesla where Musk was paid zero dollarydoos in cash and $30 fucking billion in stock options for 2021.It's probably true that most non-Musk shareholders of Tesla bought their shares because they thought the price was going to go up.
Doesn't a compensation structure where Musk makes more money if the stock price goes up and loses money if it goes down align Musk's interests with those shareholders?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear that's what I said.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear that's what I said.
Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic and I
ed. Sorry about that.
-
-
@boomzilla I thought I heard a bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth outside while heading to work this morning.
-
-
Alrighty then...
The announcement ends a weekslong saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
-
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Alrighty then...
The announcement ends a weekslong saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
The stock was halted for the news but was up more than 6% once it resumed trading.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction.
But it still trades at $51.70 as of right now.
What am I not understanding here? Should I just buy as much of this as I can immediately for a guaranteed 5% immediate profit?
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Alrighty then...
The announcement ends a weekslong saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
The stock was halted for the news but was up more than 6% once it resumed trading.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction.
But it still trades at $51.70 as of right now.
What am I not understanding here? Should I just buy as much of this as I can immediately for a guaranteed 5% immediate profit?Yes, if you can find anyone willing to sell it to you. Likely, nobody will sell.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Alrighty then...
The announcement ends a weekslong saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
The stock was halted for the news but was up more than 6% once it resumed trading.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction.
But it still trades at $51.70 as of right now.
What am I not understanding here? Should I just buy as much of this as I can immediately for a guaranteed 5% immediate profit?Yes, if you can find anyone willing to sell it to you. Likely, nobody will sell.
Trading closed (here, not sure about US exchanges) just after I wrote that, because it was just before 22:00. Not that I would’ve done it anyway, because the risk of not knowing what the catch is, but out of mere curiosity I had a tab from my bank open that said I can trade 800 for $51.85 (after currency conversion).
Well, I also don’t have that much cash in the depot account. But it looked like buying was possible.
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Alrighty then...
The announcement ends a weekslong saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
The stock was halted for the news but was up more than 6% once it resumed trading.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction.
But it still trades at $51.70 as of right now.
What am I not understanding here? Should I just buy as much of this as I can immediately for a guaranteed 5% immediate profit?You’ll be undertaking the risk that the deal fails to close due to lack of regulatory approval, something going pear shaped in the due diligence, or the markets going tits up and the financing falling through.
It seems to me like the due diligence fall through risk is higher than normal since, on its face at least, this was a fairly whimsical hostile takeover.
-
@izzion said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Alrighty then...
The announcement ends a weekslong saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his "best and final."
The stock was halted for the news but was up more than 6% once it resumed trading.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction.
But it still trades at $51.70 as of right now.
What am I not understanding here? Should I just buy as much of this as I can immediately for a guaranteed 5% immediate profit?You’ll be undertaking the risk that the deal fails to close due to lack of regulatory approval, something going pear shaped in the due diligence, or the markets going tits up and the financing falling through.
In addition, you should also be aware that capital gains tax only applies if you've held an investment for over 12 months. Anything less than that you're subject to the regular income tax. So you'd net more like 3% at best if everything worked out.
-
@izzion that actually makes more sense than most of what happened in the rest of this thread.
-
OK so this raises a question as I've been blindsided by involuntary stock actions in the past (usually splits that did nothing but inflict a reorganization fee). Why is Twitter allowed to force shareholders to sell their stock? Is stock another pretend ownership deal like home ownership (where you keep paying taxes forever and can be evicted by government because somebody rich wants to build a road through your property)? What stops a company from accepting a $1 per share bid and fucking the daylights out of shareholders (especially in Twitter's case where the board held relatively few shares and would escape said shareholder fucking)?
-
@Zenith said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
OK so this raises a question as I've been blindsided by involuntary stock actions in the past (usually splits that did nothing but inflict a reorganization fee). Why is Twitter allowed to force shareholders to sell their stock? Is stock another pretend ownership deal like home ownership (where you keep paying taxes forever and can be evicted by government because somebody rich wants to build a road through your property)? What stops a company from accepting a $1 per share bid and fucking the daylights out of shareholders (especially in Twitter's case where the board held relatively few shares and would escape said shareholder fucking)?
It's allowed because there's a clause in the issuing documents for the shares that says it's allowed. And the $1 scenario is unlikely to happen because it would prompt some very well-financed lawsuits from approximately $40 billion worth of investors over breach of fiduciary duty.
-
You see, it IS possible to have this debate without it getting fucking political. It’s almost like I assumed this site was full of functioning adults rather than “political advocates”, and who were capable of having a discussion without bringing their personal politics into it.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
You see, it IS possible to have this debate without it getting fucking political. It’s almost like I assumed this site was full of functioning adults rather than “political advocates”, and who were capable of having a discussion without bringing their personal politics into it.
Actually, the political part of it was split off into the
.
But I agree. There's a thread for the non-political part here and a thread for the censorship part there, and both can be discussed separately.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
It's allowed because there's a clause in the issuing documents for the shares that says it's allowed.
TIL. Are these kinds of clauses common?
Consider me fairly clueless about the regulatory parts for this kind of stuff. Are people expecting the deal to go through at this point or not? (I mean, sensational headlines that make it sound like the it's a done deal aside.)
-
@topspin I assumed the political part was split off, but the original bullshit was the suggestion that “the reason I posted the news was to watch it get political”. Like, no, it was to see what people thought but also very much a “well, that happened, back to work” moment.
I have a much longer view on that particular problem (the suggestion part relating to what other people think my motivations are, not the Twitter part) but that is guaranteed to land in
and frankly it’s just not worth my time knowing full well whatever I say will be taken out of context and weaponised.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin I assumed the political part was split off, but the original bullshit was the suggestion that “the reason I posted the news was to watch it get political”. Like, no, it was to see what people thought but also very much a “well, that happened, back to work” moment.
I have a much longer view on that particular problem (the suggestion part relating to what other people think my motivations are, not the Twitter part) but that is guaranteed to land in
and frankly it’s just not worth my time knowing full well whatever I say will be taken out of context and weaponised.But whining about it apparently is worth your time. How strange.
-
@MrL well, shit. I will fix my lack of permanently-happy-rictus-grin immediately.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@MrL well, shit. I will fix my lack of permanently-happy-rictus-grin immediately.
As long as it's a grownup non political grin.
For Jeffing.
