He studied at the feet of Alex Jones when it comes to being cross-examined: "Deny everything even if they have it in writing. Especially if you gain nothing materially by doing so."
The best thing you can do for your case is to look like you don't know what's going on and/or are acting in bad faith
Similarly, we can hope it results in the same outcome as the Alex Jones case, where he is fined more money than he is worth
It won't, but let me dream
The Hillary Clinton school of "they can'tc prosecute you if they can't show intent and disregard or redefine anything that would change that" except that only works with the prosecutors assistance
The stenographer had to sit there with a serious face and type that
Freeze frame
Record scratch
Yeah, that's me. Bet you're wondering how I got here.
I am a being of immortal light and refuse to acknowledge words from mere paper
Did plaintiff's counsel and opposing counsel agree that 1 = 1? Because if not then Elon was using non-euclidean logic and the other stipulations can't apply, checkmate.
I'm pretty sure even in non Euclidean systems 1 can equal 1. Does Euclid even apply to logic? Do you just mean any system which uses axioms?
You are absolutely correct, I'm not aware of Euclid applying to logic at all. I just couldn't think of a more appropriate word for communicating that specific kind of nonsense. 'Non-axiomatic' could've been cooler.
There are various non-classical logics, like dialethic systems, could allow for his statement to be correct by, for example, allowing both A and ~A. You could probably also find some way to prove using a system that limits the transitive property that the "Elon Musk" referred to in the documents is not the person speaking (or in any case cannot be proved to be the same, and therefore his statement cannot be proven false)
