I'm perfectly calm. I'm not the one caught spreading misinformation.

You however seem to have serious reading comprehension skills and an inability to admit when you're wrong. I've given you multiple opportunities to simply say something like,

Whoops. I thought I was replying to a different comment. My bad.

with regard to you bringing muskrat into the conversation. You took none of them, presumably because admitting you made a mistake is outside your skill set.

Then I gave you the opportunity to show me exactly where in the article it backs up your claim of who the source of the donation was. I was, and still am, perfectly willing to accept that I overlooked that part. You can still point it out and I'll happily accept it.

But instead of simply copyingdand pasting the sentence from the article that backs up your claim, and being done with it, or simply acting like an adult and admitting you misunderstood the article, and being done with it, you sidestep the whole thing and childishly tell me to calm down.

I don't care who donated the money. That was never my point.

What I do care about is people spreading misinformation, and right now, that's you.

Still calm and unemotional here. How about you? Are you in a place now where you can admit you were wrong?

See, here's the thing. It's not just me that noticed. You repeatedly deflected and pivoted so naturally in this conversation, that I'm not even sure you realize you're doing it until someone calls it out.

That tells me you do this on a regular basis, even with people close to you IRL. They notice. They don't call you out to keep the peace, because they know how you'll react. But they notice, and that means they don't trust you.

Seeing someone pivot, deflect and double down when faced with evidence of being wrong only lowers their credibility in the eyes of others. It means they don't follow the evidence and change their mind when appropriate. It means that they stubbornly cling to falsehoods in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, they're probably frequently wrong about stuff and shouldn't be trusted.

On the other hand, seeing them say,

Crap, you're right! I totally thought it was X, but it's really Z. Thank you! I learned something new today!

raises their credibility significantly in the eyes of others. It means that they do follow the evidence and change their mind when appropriate, and that means they're likely usually mostly right about stuff, and therefore can be trusted.

As for the donor of the cybertrucks, your right, it wasn't Elon Musk, even though I never said it was and you've repeatedly refused to address correcting me on a statement I didn't make.

However, it also wasn't the owner of UP FIT, which you've repeatedly claimed that it was without evidence. When it was pointed out that the article didn't support your claim, as you said it did, you pivoted and deflected, instead of simply saying, "Damn! You're right. I completely misread that."

So, allow me to help. According to The Guardian , it was Ben Horowitz.

The mysterious donor turned out to be Ben Horowitz, co-founder of the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and his wife Felicia Horowitz. They came forward just days after McMahill posted the renderings on social media. Horowitz’s firm, one of the best-known in Silicon Valley, invests in a variety of tech companies and spent $400m to help Musk take over Twitter in 2022.

Lastly, I'd just like to say that, had you owned up to correcting me for saying something I hadn't said at the start, I totally would have just taken your word for it about who the donor was. I would have had no reason to think that you were wrong about that. It was completely believable. Why would I question that?

It was only after you kept pivoting away from that first point that I started to question the rest of what you said. And that's how it works. When you catch someone refusing to admit they're wrong about one thing, you start to doubt everything they say.

Have a great week. I wish you the best.