| ▲ | iamnothere 16 hours ago |
| That’s not relevant to what the person you were responding to was talking about. They were talking about collectors. |
|
| ▲ | Grombobulous 15 hours ago | parent [-] |
| And I’m talking about how their discussion of collectors is no consolation to the people at Tesla who were trying to make a mass-market profitable and successful vehicle. I don’t have to talk about exactly what my comment parent is talking about in all facets. This isn’t a courtroom cross-examination. |
| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your comment is a non sequitur then. It reads like you’re just tacking on an irrelevant comment based on your personal feelings about the company. | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | If anything the original discussion of collectors was the non-sequitur. How this relates to the business of automobiles is far more relevant to the topic and article. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I guess I can’t really complain. They were making an interesting point about collectors that opened up a new line of discussion, in which I learned a couple of things. But that seemingly wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t responded to your comment, so somehow your non-sequitur response to his non-sequitur seems to have been necessary to generate that discussion. So thanks? |
|
|
|
