Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla bans Stewart Alsop from buying Model X

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I'm the Queen of England.

Pretty sure I was told I was a princess.

Your Royal Highnesses, it is a pleasure to have you both here.


Now I am so curious about the King

I have my guesses about King's identity on the forum but will keep my thoughts to myself, in respect of his desire for privacy

Most Royals are so adorable, but Queens and Princesses more so than Kings and Princes, supporting evidence below

Gustaf.JPG
 
Princess Bonnie. And I'm not sure what territory she claims, but I've called England.

As I recall, I didn't claim a territory, I was accused of being 'Princess Tesla'. So I now claim all Tesla territory as mine. MINE.

:)

So unroyal to bicker about the territory, no need for that

It has been proven that royals are awesome for the economy, they are cost effective (no supporting evidence, sorry), they attract loyal audience and unroyal masses to follow their dreamy lives, they do a lot of charity, need I say more

Australia claims both of you as our own Royals
 
Pretty sure I was told I was a princess. Krug is welcome to be Queen. That involves a lot more work.


Uhh. Princess Bonnie, I hope you read my apology concerning my post "Model 3 Production or Signature". I would hate to have my Cdn Sigx cancelled in retaliation. I'm really a nice Canadian deep down & besides, I have to pay is Canadian dollars. Please have sympathy for one of your northern neighbours. (We also spell differently).
 
So what if I want to return the sports jacket out of spite? :wink:


Sorry, Tam. You have this all wrong. Anyone can choose to do business with anyone they want for any reason, as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class. Even if the reason is for retaliation. Now, if that person is a "preacher" (as you stated), elderly, handicapped, etc., they can CLAIM that you discriminated against them for that reason. Then, it is a matter for the courts to decide whether there was inappropriate discrimination. That is a different discussion that what we are having. Or, maybe not? Are you saying that Alsop is in a protected class that prevents Musk from selling to him for that specific reason?

So, when is retaliation illegal? I'll give you an example. When an employee discovers that there is a safety violation and speaks publicly about it, and then the employer fires that employee, THAT is illegal. No such contract exsists between Musk and Alsop. Besides, if Alsop was an employee, and openly spoke poorly about Tesla, that is sufficient reason for termination, again, unless Alsop was reporting a concern about safety or impropriety. He was not. He was just being nasty.
 
That sounds fair except in the following scenario:

It is well known that famous film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel did a "thumbs down" on "Nuns on the Run."


They were then banned from FREE preview screenings from that show's owner and were quickly re-instated again.


Suppose if the pair would show up to a theater to BUY tickets to see that exact film and the theater's owner sensed that there's nothing good if this pair would see the film again. They might even trashed the film further on their TV shows and newspapers again.


I do not think it would be legal to retaliate against them in order to protect the business by banning them from paying their own way to theaters that run that "thumbs down" show.


They are protected because of the free speech even though that would damage the business when there would be a "thumbs down" review.
Wow. Virtually every sentence in every post from you in this thread is either factually, or logically confused. First amendment protections, and the law generally, simply are not what you think they are. Your enthusiasm would be better directed at reading some basic background on the relevant law and general business practices.

The issue here isn't whether it is legal, it is whether it is a good strategic business decision. I vote probably yes because perceived exclusivity (a-holes aren't allowed in the Tesla buying club) generates demand.
 
The issue here isn't whether it is legal, it is whether it is a good strategic business decision. I vote probably yes because perceived exclusivity (a-holes aren't allowed in the Tesla buying club) generates demand.

Yes you only realize a good thing when you couldn't have it. Just look at how people in areas that Tesla is not yet available perceive the car. You would think they are all whining but stangely they don't do that like certain people here who think getting the car the way they wanted is a birth right.
 
Mild manner mod: Can't you get one the the queens, princesses, princes, Knights (Paul Carter IIRC) to proclaim this discussion closed by Royal Decree?

Again, feel free to move to snippyville...thanks <lowly Delaware cerf >
 
Not having this royal malarkey.

The answer to it is France 1789, America 1776 and Russia 1917.

That's a serious mistake.

I would not miss paying road tolls to royals but I would seriously miss calling charming Prince Harry our own

And even charmier Queen Krug and Princess Tesla Bonnie

- - - Updated - - -

This thread has really improved since page 30.

That just proves my point that Royals are worth every penny in taxes they collect
 
Uhh. Princess Bonnie, I hope you read my apology concerning my post "Model 3 Production or Signature". I would hate to have my Cdn Sigx cancelled in retaliation. I'm really a nice Canadian deep down & besides, I have to pay is Canadian dollars. Please have sympathy for one of your northern neighbours. (We also spell differently).

Over and done. I don't hold grudges.