4 ms·

>It’s up to you to prove no, it's not. I'm not interested in or taking a side on the diesel question, I don't care about it. I'm appointing myself judge of the

>It’s up to you to prove no, it's not. I'm not interested in or taking a side on the diesel question, I don't care about it. I'm appointing myself judge of the English language employed, a topic I'm really good at and do care about, and I've made my ruling. They have not ruled out anything that Tesla is doing, they are simply ruling out what they are doing and ruling out Tesla's actions as not theirs. >I see no wiggle room in what was said. that's why I was appointed judge

thebruce87m 2y ago
You said: > but that building is not what Tesla leases; they are not coming out and saying that Tesla does not have diesel, they're saying "that's Tesla, not us" No one is arguing about what Tesla leases. Harris Ranch said: > The building indicated is not, nor has it ever been a diesel plant. That does not equate to “that’s Tesla, not us”. Doesn’t matter who leases it, owns it now or owned it in the past. They are asserting that it isn’t a diesel plant and has never been a diesel plant. The misinformation said it was and they are saying this is not the case. There is zero wiggle room in their statement regardless of who owns or leases the building.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  you need to learn to address what people say in their comments, not keep harping on one point. the Ranch says the building "is now a storage facility and office for the Harris Ranch Express BBQ management team, also featuring a walk-in refrigerator." Therefore, Tesla does not use or lease that building. the Ranch says "While we host Tesla’s charging infrastructure, it is crucial to note that Tesla merely leases the property from Harris Ranch. We neither own nor operate the charging station." They don't own the charging station, it is not their property. It is Tesla's property. When you rent an apartment, it is your property, you get to say "stay off my property" and to the police "you can't search my property without a warrant" the Ranch says, "There are no diesel plants or diesel generators on our property, a point we fervently assert" says nothing about Tesla's property. They drew a line between Tesla's property (leased from the Ranch) and the Ranch's property. Then thy issued a denial that does not include what Tesla is doing. is how you should be reading those statements; you're welcome. Like I said, I don't have a belief or a suspicion or a care about what Tesla is doing, I have no dog in this fight. Just explaining how to analyze what the Ranch said. Has somebody perhaps made a mistake and said "it's in that building"? Maybe, but neither the Ranch nor Tesla has said that Tesla is not doing this, and the Ranch could be hiding behind that error to mislead us about what Tesla is doing.
  - thebruce87m 2y ago
    I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. The Harris Ranch statement couldn’t be any clearer about the contents of the building in question and you’re still going on about who is leasing what. I think you’re wrong ( and know it ) and you’re digging even deeper with stuff like “When you rent an apartment, it is your property” to “win” and that is severely uninteresting to me.
    - fsckboy 2y ago
      yes, you honestly don't know. Their statement uses the word property, and the word building. You don't. You need to use both words properly to see the distinction they and I are drawing.
      - thebruce87m 2y ago
        Again, here is the important part of the statement: > The building indicated is not, nor has it ever been a diesel plant. This statement does not contain the word property. This statement tells you all you need to know. You do not need to know who owns this building, who owns the Tesla charging infrastructure or who owns the land that the charging station is on or anything else. People spreading misinformation were saying this building was a diesel plant. That statement tells you it isn’t. You now have all the information needed.

thebruce87m 2y ago

You said: > but that building is not what Tesla leases; they are not coming out and saying that Tesla does not have diesel, they're saying "that's Tesla, not us" No one is arguing about what Tesla leases. Harris Ranch said: > The building indicated is not, nor has it ever been a diesel plant. That does not equate to “that’s Tesla, not us”. Doesn’t matter who leases it, owns it now or owned it in the past. They are asserting that it isn’t a diesel plant and has never been a diesel plant. The misinformation said it was and they are saying this is not the case. There is zero wiggle room in their statement regardless of who owns or leases the building.

fsckboy 2y ago
you need to learn to address what people say in their comments, not keep harping on one point. the Ranch says the building "is now a storage facility and office for the Harris Ranch Express BBQ management team, also featuring a walk-in refrigerator." Therefore, Tesla does not use or lease that building. the Ranch says "While we host Tesla’s charging infrastructure, it is crucial to note that Tesla merely leases the property from Harris Ranch. We neither own nor operate the charging station." They don't own the charging station, it is not their property. It is Tesla's property. When you rent an apartment, it is your property, you get to say "stay off my property" and to the police "you can't search my property without a warrant" the Ranch says, "There are no diesel plants or diesel generators on our property, a point we fervently assert" says nothing about Tesla's property. They drew a line between Tesla's property (leased from the Ranch) and the Ranch's property. Then thy issued a denial that does not include what Tesla is doing. is how you should be reading those statements; you're welcome. Like I said, I don't have a belief or a suspicion or a care about what Tesla is doing, I have no dog in this fight. Just explaining how to analyze what the Ranch said. Has somebody perhaps made a mistake and said "it's in that building"? Maybe, but neither the Ranch nor Tesla has said that Tesla is not doing this, and the Ranch could be hiding behind that error to mislead us about what Tesla is doing.
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. The Harris Ranch statement couldn’t be any clearer about the contents of the building in question and you’re still going on about who is leasing what. I think you’re wrong ( and know it ) and you’re digging even deeper with stuff like “When you rent an apartment, it is your property” to “win” and that is severely uninteresting to me.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    yes, you honestly don't know. Their statement uses the word property, and the word building. You don't. You need to use both words properly to see the distinction they and I are drawing.
    - thebruce87m 2y ago
      Again, here is the important part of the statement: > The building indicated is not, nor has it ever been a diesel plant. This statement does not contain the word property. This statement tells you all you need to know. You do not need to know who owns this building, who owns the Tesla charging infrastructure or who owns the land that the charging station is on or anything else. People spreading misinformation were saying this building was a diesel plant. That statement tells you it isn’t. You now have all the information needed.