Forums

Sarah Connors Final Stand

Sarah Connors Final Stand

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/elon-musks-final-words?page=1

In the attached thread I have proposed a literal fight to the death with our multi handled friend, currently using johndoe.

The bet couldn't be more simple.

I say that Panasonic has committed to maximum spending of $1.6 billion USD on the Gigafactory, no matter what spin might be had from various news articles, particularly those regarding recent funds raised by Panasonic.

I will accept reasonable proof, from credible documents and releases. Not a guess of how much of funds raised may go to the GF.

sarahjoh has accepted the bet, and will attempt to prove that Panasonic has committed to spending in excess of $1.6 Billion USD on the Nevada Gigafactory.

The loser is to leave the Tesla forums forever.

BTW I have allowed the jury of 5 to be chosen by johndoe.

The bet is official and the jury apparently has been chosen. I simply await some assurance that the jury will be given all of the relevant facts and information.

All assurances have been given, in private and later in this thread.

A final result is expected next week.

SCCRENDO | August 16, 2016

So let us clarify the bet.
@danplans says that Panasonic will spend $1.6 on the gigafactory
@ Sarah Connors says what. They will spend more or will they spend less??

When are you guys expecting the question to be answered? Won't it take years?

dansplans | August 16, 2016

That the spending will be more than $1.6B with proof, not conjecture. My position is that the commitment is $1.6B or less in USF.

That is Panasonic, corporate spending commitments, for the Gigafactory battery production project only. Actual spending is certainly far below, currently. Official press releases and quarterly reports are acceptable as evidense, as long as they reflect the facts and are not typos or errors.

dansplans | August 16, 2016

johndoe | August 16, 2016
@dansplans
You said "It still remains at $1.6B over time."
Are you saying that Panasonic are lying?
http://insideevs.com/panasonic-to-raise-3-9-billion-to-accelerate-gigafa...

dansplans | August 16, 2016
Just like Tesla doesn't have to spend the funds raised, specifically on the headline item, at the time the funds are raised, neither does Panosonic.

Panasonic has repeatedly reaffirmed the $1.6B number. It has never changed. The headline you post is meant to imply something that Panasonic has never announced. There is no funding increase from Panasonic for the GF. They may spend at a faster clip, but the $1.6B stands.

I will propose a bet to you. Promise to never post a single item in these forums, under any name, until you find proof that my $1.6B statement is false.

If you ever return with something resembling proof, I will have the opportunity to prove my case.

I will let you chose 5 people to decide the matter in a simple vote.

Whomever is wrong will leave these forums forever............

johndoe | August 16, 2016
@dansplans
So you are saying Panasonic are lying.
You said "I will propose a bet to you. Promise to never post a single item in these forums, under any name, until you find proof that my $1.6B statement is false."
I accept your bet.
Are you sure you want to go through with it, since I have the proof ready?

dansplans | August 16, 2016
You can prove Panasonic is raising money. You may be able to prove that the GF is mentioned as the reason. You cannot prove that Panasonic has committed to spending a single penny over $1.6B for the GF.

THAT is the proof. Not some poorly worded or misquoted press release that implies something that the board of Panasonic has not approved.

dansplans | August 16, 2016
My challenge stands as proving that Panasonic Corp has committed to more than the $1.6B amount. Do you accept that as the basis for the above bet? Not some word twisting crappola.

johndoe | August 16, 2016
You have not said if you want to go through with the bet.
I am warning you that you will lose the bet.
You will need to no longer post on these forums.
Are you sure you want to go through with the bet?

dansplans | August 16, 2016
I accept the bet on the basis of proof being specifically increasing their commitment above the $1.6B. Not "may" or "possibly" or "in the future" etc. At the very minimum, a proposal for board approval to specifically increase the GF funding above $1.6B

No words from EM or Tesla, or anyone other than Panasonic are acceptable as proof.

dansplans | August 16, 2016
And no weasel words such as Yen instead of US dollars etc.

johndoe | August 16, 2016
@dansplans
I did warn you. I expect you to honor the bet.
The proof is this.
Before the latest raise, Panasonic had already committed to $US1.6 billion. You are not disputing this.
When that was announced, the gigafactory was to be 50GWh production. You are not disputing this.
It is now going to be 150GWh production i.e. 3X the production. You may dispute this.
Panasonic therefore need to invest more than the original $US1.6 billion.
They have now announced a further $US3.9 billlion raise.
When announcing this raise Panasonic said "In the near term, strategic investment (from the money raised) would be mostly in Tesla's Gigafactory. There is a need to speed up investment."
$US1.6 billion plus at least half of $US3.9 billion is greater than $US1.6 billion.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/201967-2016-08-14-panasonic-to-raise...

You can either graciously accept you have lost the bet now, or you can email me privately at bob.naughtin@gmail.com. I will then send you a document of the list of 5 people I nominate to decide the bet. I will then ask those 5 people to decide the bet, and send you a legally witnessed document stating their decision.

dansplans | August 16, 2016
You have proven nothing. I am giving you the opportunity to honor your part and do not return without actual proof.

Your pathetic attempt at proof relies on this:

"In the near term, strategic investment (from the money raised) would be mostly in Tesla's Gigafactory. There is a need to speed up investment."

The word mostly has no real meaning and does not prove anything. If Panasonic spent $1 Billion of the money on the GF and only $50 Million at a time on other projects, it could claim to have spent mostly on the GF.

If that is the pathetic limit of your attempt to "prove" the bet. Proceed to pick your 5. I told you what costitutes proof. An official declaration by Panasonic that it is increasing spending on the GF above $1.6B USF.

Tesla can propose whatever size factory they wish. Odds are it is all bluster anyway. Panasonic is under no obligation to participate to any extent beyond the current maximum commitment of $1.6B USF.

Any future announcement of revised plans to increase their investment, does not constitute proof for the purposes of this bet. We are talking about an effective date of August 17, 2016.

Are you prepared to accept judgement, and leave the forums based on actual proof, not news article speculation, or attempts to round off some announced funding round number.

johndoe | August 16, 2016
Since you will not accept the proof you will need to email me privately so I can nominate the 5 people to decide the bet. Email me at bob.naughtin@gmail.com.

dansplans | August 16, 2016
Move this to the new thread.

johndoe | August 16, 2016

@dansplans
You did not specify the bet s it was agreed to.
Please change your OP to reflect the actual bet made.
You can refer to the original thread to see what was agreed to, no more, no less.

dansplans | August 16, 2016

I have copied the original thread to here. So what term are you now disputing?

Your so called "proof" assume things. It proves nothing. My stance has not and will not change. Panasonic is in for up to $1.6 B only. Tesla can announce any dream plant size they wish. Panasonic has made to commitment to anything beyond the $1.6B.

Governments announce the same spending on numerous occasions for the PR value. Of course Tesla would never allow that kind of activity.

I'm going to assume that you are backing out, because you can't win this bet.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

The bet you accepted was "I accept the bet on the basis of proof being specifically increasing their commitment above the $1.6B. Not "may" or "possibly" or "in the future" etc. At the very minimum, a proposal for board approval to specifically increase the GF funding above $1.6B
No words from EM or Tesla, or anyone other than Panasonic are acceptable as proof."

You have changed that to be "I will accept proof only from Panasonics official documents and releases. "
"official documents and releases" was not in the accepted bet.
What was in the accepted bet was "words...from...Panasonic..."

You also said "I will let you chose 5 people to decide the matter in a simple vote."
i.e. it does not actually matter what you accept, it only matters what those 5 people I nominate decide.
You have left this out out of the OP.

I am waiting for you to email me so I can provide the list of 5 people to decide the bet.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

Let's recap your "proof"

The proof is this.
Before the latest raise, Panasonic had already committed to $US1.6 billion. You are not disputing this.
When that was announced, the gigafactory was to be 50GWh production. You are not disputing this.
It is now going to be 150GWh production i.e. 3X the production. You may dispute this.
Panasonic therefore need to invest more than the original $US1.6 billion.
They have now announced a further $US3.9 billlion raise.
When announcing this raise Panasonic said "In the near term, strategic investment (from the money raised) would be mostly in Tesla's Gigafactory. There is a need to speed up investment."
$US1.6 billion plus at least half of $US3.9 billion is greater than $US1.6 billion.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/201967-2016-08-14-panasonic-to-raise...

So this "It is now going to be 150GWh production i.e. 3X the production. You may dispute this.
Panasonic therefore need to invest more than the original $US1.6 billion." requires a simple answer.No they do not need to invest more, and are under no obligation to do so, until they make additional financial commitments to the same. $1.6B still stands. Tesla can build whatever they wish, all on their own dime. I have already shown you elsewhere that Tesla and Panasonic are not legal partners in the GF. Panasonic legally contracts cell production for Tesla and has ample financial commitments ($1.6B) to fulfill all of their contractual cell production. This may or may not change in the future. It is irrelevant to the bet.

And this "They have now announced a further $US3.9 billlion raise.
When announcing this raise Panasonic said "In the near term, strategic investment (from the money raised) would be mostly in Tesla's Gigafactory. There is a need to speed up investment."
$US1.6 billion plus at least half of $US3.9 billion is greater than $US1.6 billion.
You do not know how much of the raise will go to strategic investment. It could be $100 million with $51 million for the GF. The other $3.8 billion could simply go to general corporate purposes. $1.6 billion still stands, as Panasonic at no time announced any funding increase to their GF commitments. They have restated numerous times to nervous shareholders, that their corporate exposure is limited to their stated maximum investment of $1.6B USF. Future raises or statements of allocations are irrelevant to the bet.

The shareholders are much less nervous now, even though Panasonic has proposed to speed up the pace of investment.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@dansplans
You have still not updated the OP to fix the errors I pointed out to you.
You still have not emailed me so I can give you the 5 people to decide the bet.
What you think is proof is irrelevant.
Only what the 5 people I nominate decide is proof, and fulfills the bet requirements, is relevant.
Please email email me so I can provide the list of 5 people to decide the bet.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

If that is the proof you wish to proceed with, I will gladly take my case to the jury.

I don't see why this can't be dome in public through the forum, but I have sent an email.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

The original post proposing a bet included;

"If you ever return with something resembling proof, I will have the opportunity to prove my case."

I have rebutted your proof. I do not have any burden of proof, as you acknowledge the initial $1.6B Panasonic commitment to the Gigafactory. You must prove that Panasonic has made a financial commitment in excess of this $1.6B amount.

Don't attempt to claim I have changed some term or wording. The intent is clear and my position on where the line is drawn for the bet is absolute. No one reading this will be confused about what the bet is, nor what proof would be required to settle the bet in your favor. (Bribery and skullduggery, notwithstanding)

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@dansplans
You said "Don't attempt to claim I have changed some term or wording."
I did not make any attempt, I showed that you have changed the wording by exactly quoting the wording used before the bet was accepted. It is you who have changed the wording and still have not fixed the OP.
However, it is actually immaterial since it is in the quarterly report.

From the Panasonic quarterly report:
"Based on the board of directors meeting held on July 29, 2016, the Company resolved to issue unsecured straight bonds up to 400 billion yen on or after August 2016 in order to secure funds necessary for expanding its business."
This is an official document from Panasonic stating that the board approved the fund raise.
Senior Managing Director Hideaki Kawai then said "In the near term, strategic investment (from the money raised) would be mostly in Tesla's Gigafactory. There is a need to speed up investment,"
http://www.panasonic DOT com/global/corporate/ir/pdf/Quarterly_Report_FY2017_1Q.pdf
http://www.reuters DOT com/article/us-panasonic-results-tesla-idUSKCN1090WZ

I have provided the evidence requested for the bet.
You can either graciously accept you have lost the bet now, or I will ask the 5 people (which I have provided you with), to decide it.

Which is it?

dansplans | August 17, 2016

I have not lost anything. Your evidence is weak to the point of being a practical joke. I have already stated that I am happy to proceed, on the facts.

The Panasonic document contains a single paragraph at the end of the report, basically making a notation that the funds being raised are board approved. No evidence there.

The Reuters link is just a repeat of the other link you started with, which contains no detail nor proof.

You have failed to pass even the lowest level as far as burden of proof goes. You couldn't win a single dollar in Texas or Arkansas, with a bribed jury, with this evidence. A judge would be forced to jail them all for taking bribes, as it is not possible to get a verdict in your favor with the facts presented.

See my specific rebuttal above. It is all I need.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@dansplans
I provided you with what the bet requested. I actually provided you with more than the bet requested. Are you going to honour the bet if the 5 people decide against you?

johndoe | August 17, 2016

PS:
When you say "The Panasonic document contains a single paragraph at the end of the report, basically making a notation that the funds being raised are board approved. No evidence there." what you are saying is that the Quarterly earnings reports is not a Panasonic statement, and also that it is not official. That is a preposterous claim to make. Not only that, but it is exactly what you asked for.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

PPS:
I note that you have changed 'official' to 'credible'. Are you claiming that the quarterly report is not credible?
You have not added to the OP that 5 people of my choosing decide the bet.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

I have updated the OP to make language to clarify the "proof" and remove terms you feel I tried to change. I also clarified what I believe to be the essence of your position, which the "proof" will settle.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

The bet couldn't be more simple.

I say that Panasonic has committed to maximum spending of $1.6 billion USD on the Gigafactory, no matter what spin might be had from various news articles, particularly those regarding recent funds raised by Panasonic.

I will accept reasonable proof, from credible documents and releases. Not a guess of how much of funds raised may go to the GF.

sarahjoh has accepted the bet, and will attempt to prove that Panasonic has committed to spending in excess of $1.6 Billion USD on the Nevada Gigafactory.

The loser is to leave the Tesla forums forever.

I have repeated the changes here for future reference, should you demand further changes.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

The 5 people consist of 4 engineers and one accountant. 3 are Model 3 reservation holders. 3 are Tesla shareholders.
Are you going to honour the bet if the 5 people decide against you?

dansplans | August 17, 2016

Of course i will honor the bet. I proposed it.

Since you cannot win the bet on the facts, will you honor the bet once you lose?

dansplans | August 17, 2016

I repeat the bet for the final time, as proof that there will be no tampering at a future date:

The bet couldn't be more simple.

I say that Panasonic has committed to maximum spending of $1.6 billion USD on the Gigafactory, no matter what spin might be had from various news articles, particularly those regarding recent funds raised by Panasonic.

I will accept reasonable proof, from credible documents and releases. Not a guess of how much of funds raised may go to the GF.

sarahjoh has accepted the bet, and will attempt to prove that Panasonic has committed to spending in excess of $1.6 Billion USD on the Nevada Gigafactory.

The loser is to leave the Tesla forums forever.

BTW I have allowed the jury of 5 to be chosen by johndoe.

The bet is official and the jury apparently has been chosen. I simply await some assurance that the jury will be given all of the relevant facts and information.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@dansplans
Yes, I will honour the bet if I lose.
This will take me a few days to carry out so the result will not be in until next week.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

I'll check in regularly. I want you to state here that you will not bribe or otherwise try to unduly influence the outcome. That this will be an honest jury.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

Acknowledging that I have correctly stated the general parameters of the bet a few posts above would also be constructive.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@dansplans
No, I will not bribe or otherwise try to unduly influence the outcome.
You have already been privately assured of this by the statement we have agreed will be signed by the 'jury'.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

Yes, you have specified the bet to my satisfaction.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

I accept both your public and private assurances that every aspect of the bet has now been agreed upon.

I leave it to the jury to decide the fate of one of us, on these forums

johndoe | August 17, 2016

mostly
ˈməʊs(t)li/Submit
adverb
as regards the greater part or number.

Peter Gregory | August 17, 2016

It appears you guys need to develop something constructive to do with your time? Maybe some volunteer work, helping others?

Ross1 | August 17, 2016

You have not specified how many of the jury have to be united in their decision.
3?
5?

David N | August 17, 2016

Peter Gregory
+1

lar_lef | August 17, 2016

Who's on first? (Abbot and Costello)

SCCRENDO | August 17, 2016

Keep us posted guys.

Silver2K | August 17, 2016

every article states $1.6 billion or in the article linked below "up to $1.6 billion"

http://mashable.com/2016/01/16/panasonic-tesla-gigafactory-investment/#o...

dsvick | August 17, 2016

You both lose .....

Now the rest of can do something constructive with our time like talk about a solar roof on the M3, or maybe SC access plans .....

Silver2K | August 17, 2016

who are the 5 jurors ??

Mathew98 | August 17, 2016

@bb0tin/bob.naughtan/ton/tn/tyn/tin

Alternate jurors - some variations of the first set...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

lol @ Mathew98

dansplans | August 17, 2016

I don't think anyone expects anything more than a majority decision. At no time was a call made for the decision to be unanimous.

Silver2K | August 17, 2016

this mathew98 guy...... him and his flag!

ram1901 | August 17, 2016

This post is an example of why it is useless to respond to anything said by the multiple personality poster(s).

@danplans: why did you allow yourself to be drawn into this bottomless pit??

dsvick | August 17, 2016

The title of this thread made me think there was a new movie coming out .... imagine my disappointment ...

dansplans | August 17, 2016

@dsvick lmao sorry to disappoint you. There will be no sequel.

@ram1901 I understand your point, however, I am making an attempt to put an end to things as they stand. I have put it all on the line. If by some miracle I lose, I will consider it "taking one for the team".

georgehawley.fl.us | August 17, 2016

so, let me get this straight. If @dansplans "takes one for the team", Bernie sticks around and @dansplans goes away? Hmmm

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@Peter Gregory @David N
I do

holidayday | August 17, 2016

For that 1.6 billion by Panasonic, does it have a timeline? "by 2018" for example or "by 2020"?

Wouldn't that mean the bet doesn't make any senses to make until reality happens?

You know, the resolution of the bet will not happen until Panasonic actually SPENDS the funds, no matter what document, statement, or whatever by Panasonic employees or publications.
So, the loser gets to stay until about 2021, and then they leave when Panasonic annual reports come out and say how much they spent on the Gigafactory investment.
any other bet just sounds silly.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@georgehawley
dansplans only "takes one for the team" because he was wrong.
You can offer to "take one for the team" any time as well.

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@holidayday
You said "So, the loser gets to stay until about 2021"
The loser gets to stay around until the Jury gives it's decision, probably next week.

Ross1 | August 17, 2016

georgehawley August 17, 2016
so, let me get this straight. If @dansplans "takes one for the team", Bernie sticks around and @dansplans goes away? Hmmm

Idiots

johndoe | August 17, 2016

@the usual suspects
I understand that you do not like to be shown to be wrong. Most people do not like to have their opinions challenged, never mind have those opinions shown to be wrong. You are all in that camp. Your continual interlocutions are a simple response caused by your chagrin at having been shown to be ignorant and incorrect.

dansplans | August 17, 2016

@everyone

The bet is based on Panasonic's official commitment to spending on the GF. It doesn't matter what has been spent to date. It doesn't matter what additional commitments they may make in the future. The number in question, as of mid August is $1.6 billion USD.

Official commitments at or below $1.6B means I am correct. Any amount over $1.6B means I have agreed to leave these forums.

Since I am not going anywhere, based on the bet, it remains to be seen if Sarah will honor the bet and leave for good.......

@Ross I thought you would enjoy this bet more than most, as SarahJohnboy has been particularly fond of giving you grief. Or am I just missing your not so subtle humor?

Pages