-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Thankfully this forum is not censored.
- Thread starter bmzl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Site Feedback
From me personally (which would be Model 3 and sometimes Off Topic) - maybe three or four a year.
Finally some accurate verbiage about the Tesla.com fora. Their forum app is not homegrown - it’s Mollum. There’s a lot less kissing/sucking up because the heirarchy there is flat. Nobody cares if you owned a Roadster or how many posts you’ve written.
Further, any post can get vaporized if enough people flag it. And in general the tone is far more civil because there isn’t omnipresent and uneven moderation. Nobody to impress or limits to push. The posts stand or fall on their own.
QUOTE]
Please feel free to read the thread that I tried to post on. You will see that there was nothing that I said that anybody, other than Tesla management, would or could flag.
You are also incorrect on the "flat hierarchy;" owners are the only ones who are able to "flag" post. Moreover, while I haven't done a word by word comparison, but I'm sure there are others here who have witnessed the profusion of ad hominem attacks if anyone challenges the perfection of an M3--certainly more than this forum. Additionally, this is not the first time this is happened to me. Many times I have tried to start my own thread on issues critical of options pricing--I was prevented every time. This is not the innocent operation of mollum--this is subject censorship by Tesla management
I didn't say I "knew" anything; I just cited some sources that supported my position.
But while we are on the subject of knowledge, let me add some I do have: The M3's pricing on EAP and FSD are indefensibly excessive (and I doubt were originally intended to be that high). Inasmuch as there is no marginal cost associated with them, their pricing on the MX and MS would most logically be based on demand elasticity, in order to maximize profits. However, pricing EAP and FSD at the same $ on the M3, is excessive because of the greater demand elasticity of the mass market as opposed to the luxury market (Google "demand elasticity" or "price elasticity"). In other words, if Tesla lowered the price on the M3 for EAP and FSD, they would actually increase their profits on the M3. The only logical reason for this, which is supported by Tesla's recent anti-selling of the M3, is to prevent the M3 from stealing sales from the MX and MS (especially given the huge number of deposits placed on the M3)--not very pro-M3 customers
Perhaps by lowing the price of EAP and FSD there would be an expectation among S and X owners that they too would pay the same price for the same features/functions. The assumption that the cost of the software should scale based on the price of the vehicle it's on is flawed. You're not treating them like a tech company, but a car company.
And I'm oh so happy that you've managed to pull not one, but two of your past flawed gripefests into a third thread.
As to your other argument about average price, I support the other posters in saying that you have no idea what that will be, and neither do your sources, as there is no average price until the full range of options and configurations is available, and a good sample size of purchases is available to review data. Until then, you're whining about a hypothetical, and simply finding other groups writing articles whining about the hypothetical to support your viewpoints. Had Tesla decided to do short range, non premium only as the first run, you'd see just as many threads about people griping about not having the ability to option out the M3 into the luxury space. Wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them, just to cause a stir.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I thought this thread was about forum censorship, not the dredge up the M3 price model again.
cpa
Active Member
Ohmman, your answer reminds me of a time that I was a witness in a civil action. I testified on behalf of the respondent. During direct, his lawyer asked me something along those lines--"How many times per month did you and the respondent have meetings?"
After a few seconds of thought I answered, "We had about three or four meetings in total over the course of about 15-16 months."
"Objection! Witness did not answer the question as posed!" I gave a sideways glance at the judge. He reached into a drawer and pulled out a calculator and handed it to me. I told the judge, "Thank you, but if we make the math simple, four meetings in sixteen months equals one meeting every four months. We had 1/4 of a meeting per month."
Aw, Siggy, you are just trying to disapprove my assertion that there is less ad hominem here than on Tesla.com. Okay, you win, you can engage in ad hominem with the best of them; you can even combine ad hominem with strawman arguments.
According to you, everyone you disagree with is whining. And if I respond to someone else's citation to one of my past threads, then I am the one who brings in those threads. "Past flawed gripefest;" funny, if it was a flawed gripefest, you would think you could show one of those flaws.
But of course you can't, you never can; that is why you engage in ad hominem and strawman arguments.
Speaking of whining, what is this: "Had Tesla decided to do short range, non premium only as the first run, you'd see just as many threads about people griping about not having the ability to option out the M3 into the luxury space. Wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them, just to cause a stir" Of course, that has nothing to do with anything that I have said here (strawman); you just wanted to take this opportunity to whine about another issue.
People here are flirting with a thread clean-up. Personal attacks are not permitted on the forum. Please exercise some restaint; otherwise half the thread might end up in snippiness.
I have no issues with how Tesla decided to roll out the car. I fully intend to do the LR m3 with pup, and would have delayed had it been the standard as the first offering. My point is that you generally seem unhappy with the M3, but I suspect you'd be unhappy with it no matter what price point and options were first available.
I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and talk to the content of their posts. But yours have non. You post opinion as factual sources, make statements about never claiming you said certain things, when looking a few posts back shows it to be wrong, and still you persist. You're here to argue for the sake of argument, not to reach any truth. And when people call you out on it, you fall back on the idea that people are just being assess and ignoring the content of your argument. We're not ignoring it. We've all read it, now and a dozen times before in your other similar posts.
Familiar with a saying like "Wake up in the am and run into an ass, he's the ass. If by noon you've encountered six asses, you're the ass."
I'm sure the mods will do their work to my post, and I'm fine with that. Will be a fitting event in a thread that started about censorship but morphed into just a venue for the op to revisit his old posts.
Siggy: In response to your last attack, I replied: And if I respond to someone else's citation to one of my past threads, then I am the one who brings in those threads.
Your reply? Simply a reiteration of your unsupported acusation: "a thread that started about censorship but morphed into just a venue for the op to revisit his old posts."
My old posts were first brought up in post #22, I tried to bring the thread back to my original post at post # 25; only to have additional old posts of mine brought up in post # 26. It appears that there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent you from making inaccurate unsupported allegations.
I also replied "Past flawed gripefest;" funny, if it was a flawed gripefest, you would think you could show one of those flaws.
So what do you respond with? More unsupported ad hominem:
"I suspect you'd be unhappy with it no matter what price point and options were first available."
Okay, again you can't cite anywhere where I have criticized anything other than Tesla' censorship and pricing of options on the M3s.
"I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and talk to the content of their posts. But yours have non. You post opinion as factual sources."
My "sources" were 1) a Verge article addressing Tesla's bait and switch with the M3 pricing, 2) two different websites where M3 purchasers stated what options they intended to purchase. But of course, that's just me again stating my opinions as facts.
There are many threads here that are addressed primarily to opinion. My statements in this thread is about as far from that as possible. I gave many factual reasons to support my conclusion that Tesla's management censors their M3 forum. My statements regarding the M3's option pricing were based on verified factual knowledge, I even suggested where you could verify it in Google. But again the truth simply doesn't matter to you; your objective here is to attack me ad hominem, regardless what the facts are.
I don't know what your real issue is; but that is your problem, not mine.
Your reply? Simply a reiteration of your unsupported acusation: "a thread that started about censorship but morphed into just a venue for the op to revisit his old posts."
My old posts were first brought up in post #22, I tried to bring the thread back to my original post at post # 25; only to have additional old posts of mine brought up in post # 26. It appears that there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent you from making inaccurate unsupported allegations.
I also replied "Past flawed gripefest;" funny, if it was a flawed gripefest, you would think you could show one of those flaws.
So what do you respond with? More unsupported ad hominem:
C'mon Siggy , if I've done it dozens of times, why can't you cite even one? Why don't you even cite one time from this thread? We're up to thread # 56 and you cannot even find one example? Yes I did say that "we now know that…" Which I agreed could be interpreted as an opinion. So what did I do? I apologized; which, according to you is "still persist[ing]." Facts do not mean anything to you; there is nothing I can do to stop you from misrepresenting what I actually said.
"I suspect you'd be unhappy with it no matter what price point and options were first available."
Okay, again you can't cite anywhere where I have criticized anything other than Tesla' censorship and pricing of options on the M3s.
"I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and talk to the content of their posts. But yours have non. You post opinion as factual sources."
My "sources" were 1) a Verge article addressing Tesla's bait and switch with the M3 pricing, 2) two different websites where M3 purchasers stated what options they intended to purchase. But of course, that's just me again stating my opinions as facts.
There are many threads here that are addressed primarily to opinion. My statements in this thread is about as far from that as possible. I gave many factual reasons to support my conclusion that Tesla's management censors their M3 forum. My statements regarding the M3's option pricing were based on verified factual knowledge, I even suggested where you could verify it in Google. But again the truth simply doesn't matter to you; your objective here is to attack me ad hominem, regardless what the facts are.
I don't know what your real issue is; but that is your problem, not mine.
Last edited:
Similar threads
