N.Y. Times steps in on the dealership issue in Conneticut

[evp]

Opinion | Connecticut Should Be Tesla Country

Hypocrisy of offering rebates for buying electric cars that you're making it difficult to buy is duly noted.

 

[tinm]

Good to see the dealer cartel get some criticism.
Wish these Tesla proponents made it clear to the media how the problem extends way beyond six U.S. states.

 

[evp]

Good to see the dealer cartel get some criticism.
Wish these Tesla proponents made it clear to the media how the problem extends way beyond six U.S. states.

Good point. It was looking like Colorado would end up being one of those -- Tesla was grandfathered in with one showroom when the law was changed thanks to the dealership lobby. But apparently a careful read of the statute indicates that a "dealership" can open branch offices and still be considered a single legal entity. This enabled Tesla to proceed with opening up a new and much larger service center (real soon now), and more showrooms. I had no idea this existed -- a new showroom in Vail!

While talking to one of the showroom personnel, we watched these three boys just grooving on the car and the displays and such. So I felt that I had to encourage further wanton behavior and invited them to recreate a Tesla Clown Car picture I had taken a year or so ago...

 

[cpa]

That editorial is full of alternative facts.

 

[rhumbliner]

That editorial is full of alternative facts.

Not sure if your post was sarcasm that was too subtle for my brain or you were being serious.

 

[ecarfan]

That editorial is full of alternative facts.

That op-ed piece is an accurate analysis of how auto dealer franchises impede trade and harm the consumer.

"Alternative facts" are falsehoods. I didn't see any in that op-ed. If you did, please specify.

If your post was meant to be sarcastic, it missed the mark or you simply chose the wrong emoji.

 

[cpa]

Then I likely missed the mark and selected the wrong emoji. This sort of communication with words and those emojis is not in my wheelhouse. I had hoped that the emphasis added would have cleared up any ambiguity. I failed. Furthermore, I was trying to avoid any sort of overt political comment.

I liked the editorial. I agree with the position of the NYT. I dislike those who espouse alternative facts.

I was trying to imply that the writers of the editorial were using truth to advance their position. Yet I wished to turn the tables and present the truth as alternative facts, if that makes any sense. Sort of a linguistic mix of litotes and meiosis, but there ain't any emojis to convey this sort of linguistic license.

 

[mcbarnet007]

Then I likely missed the mark and selected the wrong emoji. This sort of communication with words and those emojis is not in my wheelhouse. I had hoped that the emphasis added would have cleared up any ambiguity. I failed. Furthermore, I was trying to avoid any sort of overt political comment.

I liked the editorial. I agree with the position of the NYT. I dislike those who espouse alternative facts.

I was trying to imply that the writers of the editorial were using truth to advance their position. Yet I wished to turn the tables and present the truth as alternative facts, if that makes any sense. Sort of a linguistic mix of litotes and meiosis, but there ain't any emojis to convey this sort of linguistic license.

your logic is...too advance for me? How to present the truth as "alternative facts"? Or are you saying that someone could claim the truth as "alternative facts" to serve their own agenda?