3 ms·
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. The original comment merely points out an interesting note in that both parties have their own interest in solar. Y
by csteubs 7y ago
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. The original comment merely points out an interesting note in that both parties have their own interest in solar. You make so many specific counter-claims to a simple sentence that it seems like you're responding to the wrong comment.
- IAmGraydon 7y agoThe post he was replying to was clearly implying foul play, as it would not have any relevance to the story otherwise. What I think is odd is the fact that you parse human language like a machine rather than a human. There is more to human language than the extremely literal interpretation of the words in a sentence. Implied meaning is one of those things.
- csteubs 7y ago> The Walton Family also happens to own much of First Solar, a competing provider of photovoltaic cells. Where is foul play implied in that sentence? To me it reads like more of an aside than an allegation of wrong doing. The stakes of this particular suit feel more "business-as-usual" than malicious or strategic.
- briandear 7y agoThe Walton family owns a lot of other things as well, but the mention of solar was clearly to suggest a conflict of interest.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoIf I misinterpreted the parent, I'm genuinely happy to delete my post and apologize. But I don't think I did.
- woofyman 7y agoI interpreted the post the same way.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- markrote 7y agoCsteubs is correct - there was no implication of foul play in the original post. Typically when there's an article about a business dispute like this, you would expect the article to include relevant information about overlapping business interests, so I added that for context.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoLooks like it's too late to delete or edit, but I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you were saying. Looks like I was the irrationally paranoid one, after all :)