Twitter Board Expected To Fight Musk Offer, The Information Reports (theinformation.com) 181
Twitter's board of directors views Elon Musk's buy offer as unwelcome, The Information reported Thursday, citing a person familiar with the situation, suggesting it will fight the bid. The report adds: One person close to the situation said that the board wanted to support CEO Parag Agrawal, who only assumed the role in November. Meanwhile, Musk hasn't provided details of his plans for Twitter or his financing for the deal.
I would suggest they look at (Score:5, Informative)
T Boone Pickens and his history of leveraged buyouts [economist.com].
It can certainly happen to Twitter and Elon likely does not even need to get a large bank on his side
The first Trillionaire may well be in the making
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, paywall, try this link [veterinary-ireland.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are they SO scared of the Twitter platform being opened up a bit more for more free speech that they'd commit fiscal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A poison pill that would dilute their stock to near worthless?
You're assuming the market will react rationally. It’s entirely possible those crazies over at Reddit will think "MOAR STONKS = MOAR PROFIT!"
Sane investors don't buy GameStop or AMC, either, and we know how that went.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess someone from /r/wallstreetbets had mod points on Slashdot today.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably more worried about Musk's hit and miss record on these things. Tesla and SpaceX are doing well, but his tunnel is just stupid, hyperloop wasted a lot of other people's money, his solar and home battery businesses are uncompetitive...
Even within the successes like Tesla, there are a lot of failures and unrealistic timescales. Cybertruck, full self driving, robotaxi, the new Roadster, endless production issues...
If Musk buys Twitter then it's probably 50/50 at best that he will destroy it, and the id
Re: (Score:2)
Space-X hasnt even gone public yet....he will be the first trillionaire.
Re: I would suggest they look at (Score:2)
One Interpretation: (Score:2)
This is Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is Hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter is a publicly traded company listed on The New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol TWTR. You don't own the platform but you can buy a share.
In Elon's case a can buy MANY shares, and then strong arm the board to accept more profitable business practices
Re: (Score:2)
It almost looks as if ideally, he wants to buy it all outright, and take it private.
Re: (Score:3)
That actually worked out really well for Dell [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In Elon's case a can buy MANY shares, and then strong arm the board to accept more profitable business practices
Except he can't. That's illegal unless he filed the right paperwork to announce that's what he was doing. Which he didn't.
I personally think he didn't accept a position on the Board exactly so he could legally do this buyout.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I personally think he didn't accept a position on the Board exactly so he could legally do this buyout.
Being as it was incredibly transparent that the existing board wanted to lock him into a binding legal agreement to disallow a buyout and simply marginalize him on the board, that is a logical assumption. You don't exactly need to be Gordon Gekko to see what's happening here.
Re:This is Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
EXCEPT you're wrong..Had he actually joined the board he'd be a fiduciary to the other share holders and he could not do things that potential harm the company or its reputation.
As just a large share holder he is free to criticize the board and the company as much as he likes. As a large share holder he has a lot votes so if board members don't want to have him putting his thumb on the scales of every issue that comes up for proxy vote like executive pay for example and have him voting against their recommendations - they are incentivized to make him happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I think that his role could best be stated as Activist Shareholder [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yet. The first move is a public offer, to entice shareholders to say "yeah, I'd like to get that nice locked in profit on my holdings, thanks." and force a vote. If the offer doesn't get accepted, he moves on to "Plan B" which is to buy a controlling interest on the open market and deal with the SEC filings and such necessary for such a move.
He has the resources to buy the fucking thing outright - there aren't a whole lot of moves that Twitter can do to prevent it, other than establishing a "poison pill"
Re: (Score:2)
Does the board think the shareholders are clamoring for them to get in the way, or are they traitors, stomping their widdle feets, advancing their own interests ahead of the stockholders?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the answer is "Yes."
It's perfectly possibly for both of those statements to be true. Essentially the only way this doesn't happen is if the Twitter board makes moves to dilute the value of their own holdings, or if Musk gives up. And can you think of a recent example of Musk giving up on something he really wants to do? The last one I can think of was taking Tesla private in a hissy fit because he didn't like the way institutional investors were talking during the Model 3 ramp, and that landed hi
Re: (Score:2)
Except he can't. That's illegal unless he filed the right paperwork to announce that's what he was doing. Which he didn't.
No it's not. As a shareholder you have can buy shares without ever telling anyone what your intentions are, be they 1 share, or a controlling interest in the company. The only scrutiny you are subject to is that of antitrust laws.
Activist investors exist, many companies have them and there are no laws stopping them.
Re:This is Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get why some people cling to the "Elon is a scam artist." belief? I mean, every con artist I know is someone who hawks vaporware and never releases an actual product. They aren't in charge of companies that successfully get U.S. astronauts into space, or who successfully complete not just one, but four automobile manufacturing plants around the globe. They don't successfully put whole groups of a new type of mini satellite into low Earth orbit, in order to create the world's first low latency satellite broadband system. How much more has to be done by companies with links to the man before you decide maybe he's a legitimate businessman?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a scam artist and a successful entrepreneur boils down to legalities.
If you somehow manage to get an audience it front of a bunch of rich investors and successfully pitch your shitcoin ICO, you're a scammer.
If you convince an elderly person to mail you Walmart gift cards because you're the IRS and that's just how back taxes are paid, you're a scammer.
If you somehow manage to get an audience it front of a bunch of rich investors and successfully pitch your company's stock, you're an en
Re: Go watch Iron Man 2 (Score:2)
You're not reading my comment (Score:3)
He presents himself as a self-made entrepreneur. Virtually everything he's achieved depends on the government. And worse he's taken measures to prevent high speed rail to keep the value of his cars high. And speaking of those cars he's lobbied for tax laws that encourage luxury EVs at the expense of mid-tiers.
Read that again and ask yourself what part of what I wrote isn't true?
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually everything he's achieved depends on the government.
And yet he achieved those things, that the government, despite decades of trying, could not.
And worse he's taken measures to prevent high speed rail to keep the value of his cars high.
High speed rail in America has proven quite capable of preventing itself.
When did the gov't make an electric car? (Score:2)
And saying "High speed rail prevented itself" in the face of evidence that guys like Musk actively prevented it (lots of folks before Musk worked hard to make us all drive cars, ever seen Who Framed Rodger Rabbit?).
At this point you're just being contrarian. You're grasping at straws for the sake of defending Musk. It's a bit sad really, but it also has real world consequences th
Re:Go watch Iron Man 2 (Score:5, Informative)
If you're judging him by a cameo role in a superhero movie? Well, I'm going to disregard that as having any real validity.
When you're talking about Tesla, sure - he was basically the "money" behind it and clearly not the guy who invented an electric vehicle, OR any of the tech used in the ones they're selling. He still seemed pretty involved in the decision-making process of what software updates should be done before others when Tesla pushes out new firmware, and he made the effort to be the visible "face" of the company. That's largely what Steve Jobs did for Apple, too - and few people label him a con artist for any of it. For Tesla, it was a venture that involved considerable financial risk too, because most others trying something similar failed miserably. (Fisker might have been one of the better attempts and they went bankrupt too, after only manufacturing one model of vehicle.)
Space-X is where Musk really shows he's more than just the financial backer... He succeeded in making reusable rockets and even one that could switch orientation from vertical to horizontal in a "flip" maneuver that many old-school NASA rocket scientists believed would never work. He revolutionized that industry by using a business model NASA feared to ever attempt; rapid iteration of designs that failed often.
The Hyperloop thing? That's really quite a side project for Elon, especially when you realize he never promised his company would actually go into the business of making them. He was looking for interested parties to put their own funding and R&D work into the concept. And rail? Clearly, it hasn't really been "good enough" for much of anything related to passenger transportation, or else Amtrak wouldn't constantly be bleeding money, only propped up with our tax dollars year after year. Even when I used it in the Northeastern US for commuting to/from work, the fact they had to share the same rails as freight trains owned by another rail company meant delays and unreliable schedules.
I'm judging him by his efforts to mainpulate me (Score:2)
For fucks sake, look up some videos on Hyperloop. It's tech from the 1920s. If you shoot it with a high power rifle it depressurizes and explodes. That's why it's never been done and the fact the Musk is promoting such an obviously bad idea shows it's a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
He did voice overs on Rick and Morty also
OMG!
Re: (Score:2)
Full Self Driving is a scam.
He originally sold it as your car would drive you to work, then you get out and it goes off and parks itself for the day. He said you would be able to summon it from the other side of the country, so it would be capable of charging itself too.
Later he said that Tesla would launch a Robotaxi service in 2019. Your car would earn you money while you were not using it, and become an appreciating asset. Over the years he has repeatedly promised that it would launch in the next six mon
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he sold the tech back to us... at a significantly lower price than the government could do itself with a much faster cadence of launches. As for scam artists, anyone pushing passenger trains outside of the NYC/DC corridor and maybe Chicago/Milwaukee is the definition of a scam artist. The population density per mile of rail needed doesn't exist.
Um... no he didn't (Score:2)
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think he's a scam artist, but you have to admit he's damn good at it.
What are you talking about, he's a horrible scam artist. A good scam artist would tell people they are changing the world, take investor's money and run off, not stick around and actually build the car people say can't be built, or the rocket that people say can't be built.
Re: (Score:2)
>It's easy to do when you have his kind of money.
He sure is lucky the magical money fairly floated into his room and dropped $50B in his lap. Easy!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, yes and just luckily stumbling into PayPal money, then fortuitously creating a winning car company and just happening to launch dozens of rockets (and landing them too).... what a lucky cuss
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we established that the hard part is getting the money. And if Musk bought Xbox Live and reprogrammed it to make everyone else's Xbox display a big red "LOSER" banner while he plays Call of Duty, that still wouldn't mean he's any better at the game. He's just a lot richer.
Re: (Score:2)
" just luckily stumbling into PayPal money"
He pretty much did as he was kicked to the curb well before they went public.
The only reason he made a fortune was because he had shares in a company for which he held no role & no longer had any input or influence.
Re: (Score:2)
As with all things it is more convoluted than that, and having a first mover position in online banking is in itself an achievement
In 1999, Musk co-founded X.com, an online financial services and e-mail payment company.The startup was one of the first federally insured online banks, and, in its initial months of operation, over 200,000 customers joined the service. The company's investors regarded Musk as inexperienced and had him replaced with Intuit CEO Bill Harris by the end of the year. The following ye
I hope Musk succeeds in restoring free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope Musk succeeds in restoring free speech (Score:5, Informative)
You fail to understand the concept of Free Speech in a privately owned establishment
If I have a hotel, and you want to enter it to exercise Free Speech, I can have the police remove you to the sidewalk... where you can speechify on public property all you want
Property Owner rights are well established in America
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We understand the concept just fine, we just disagree with the current implementation now that all communications are effectively controlled by a handful of billionaires.
It's interesting how many people have woken up to the idea that there's a problem with a few billionaires controlling all the major platforms now that it's Musk. Yet somehow had no problem with Saudi Arabia's stake in Twitter, despite controversies like the journalist/arms dealer getting hacked apart by bone saws by another member of that
re: free speech in private establishments (Score:2)
I'd say YOU might be the one misunderstanding some details here? For starters, is a social media platform like Twitter equivalent to a physical establishment covered by property rights? I'd say that's pretty questionable.
And yes, I do believe someone's online service that's a privately owned business venture has the right to exert control over what people can say or do while using it. But it becomes problematic if you market said service as a place for everyone to publish comments freely under their chosen
Re: (Score:3)
When I own the servers that the media platform runs on, then YES it IS a physical establishment
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you fail to understand the Sword of Damoclese the government holds over the head of these large media companies.
"Censor harrassment or we will abolish section 230, opening you up as a target rich environment for liability lawsuits, crushing your business model and skyrocketting costs."
"Oh, and collapsing your stock prices, gee whiz."
"So censor now, at our orders lest things...get broken. Oh look! Our political opponents are tweeting harrassing things right before an election. Start with them."
These a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You should read up on the Commerce Clause and the position the federal government holds over interstate commerce
United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think Twitter's board of directors just don't want an African-American to run the company.
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal then others." -- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
Re: (Score:3)
A natural consequence of Wickard v Filburn, in which the government said a man couldn't grow his own wheat to feed his own cows. A consequence of that authoritarian dickweasel FDR threatening to pack the courts..
Re:I hope Musk succeeds in restoring free speech (Score:5, Funny)
Think of twitter as a bakery and republicans as a gay wedding cake. Conservatives fought for the right to refuse business. Now all of a sudden they don't like it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Size matters. The lone baker serves 50 customers a day, maybe. Twitter serves millions (billions?) Twitter IS the town square.
No, it is a enormously huge bakery. It is not owned by the public.
Publicly traded (you can buy a share or two and vote those shares), but not owned by the public.
Public utilities (Score:2)
Size matters. The lone baker serves 50 customers a day, maybe. Twitter serves millions (billions?) Twitter IS the town square.
No, it is a enormously huge bakery. It is not owned by the public. Publicly traded (you can buy a share or two and vote those shares), but not owned by the public.
You need to read up on the concept of public utility. Private companies that provide important services to a large enough population typically fall under government regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
A public utility [wikipedia.org] company (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.
A public service [wikipedia.org] is any service intended to address specific needs pertaining to the aggregate members of a community. Public services are available to people within a government jur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Examples of such services include the fire brigade, police, air force, and paramedics (see also public service broadcasting). In which US or global election did we vote to create and fund Twitter?
You definition is lacking. Public utility also includes the water company, the electric company, the natural gas company, the telephone company, etc. In my area the latter three were not voted on and created by the government. Yet today they are all regulated public services, still private companies, but regulated due to their importance to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition is accurate. You are confusing a "public utility" with an "investor-owned utility".
An investor-owned utility can act as a public utility but it remains owned by the investors, and not the public. Yes, they are regulated due to their importance. You likely have no choice as to which investor-owned utility provides the water, electrical, gas connections to your home, though you might be allowed to choice which company provides the actual water (not so common), electricity, or gas. You also
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is not public. It is a privately (investor) owned, publicly traded ..
So is the electric company, so is the gas company.
Neither is Twitter a utility. It does not provide an essential or unique service ...
The phone company also started as a non-utility, however once it became ubiquitous in usage it became a utility.
The service it does provide is provided by many competitors ...
Its not about a headcount of competitors, its more about market dominance. And twitter is somewhat unique with respect to reach and influence.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is not public. It is a privately (investor) owned, publicly traded ..
So is the electric company, so is the gas company.
Twitter is not a utility.
Neither is Twitter a utility. It does not provide an essential or unique service ...
The phone company also started as a non-utility, however once it became ubiquitous in usage it became a utility.
The service it does provide is provided by many competitors ...
Its not about a headcount of competitors, its more about market dominance. And twitter is somewhat unique with respect to reach and influence.
Twitter has roughly 436 million monthly users, on the order of Reddit (430 million) and Pinterest (444 million). That's quite a bit, but pales compared to Facebook (2.9 billion), YouTube (2.5 billion), and WhatsApp (2 billion). None of these companies are utilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is not a utility.
Today, but the telephone company shows how that can change. TV also demonstrates some interesting paths to regulation, for example TV being a significant disseminator of news led to it being in the public interest to create some regulations related to equal-time.
Twitter has roughly 436 million monthly users
Its not simply about head counts. Its also about usage by government agencies and news organizations. Again, note TV ultimately being recognized as a significant disseminator of news and hence regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh really. [sfist.com]
Sorry, when the "kingmaker" of the GOP that every single conservative politician is bending over backwards in order to boot-lick is leading the legal charge because he's still butthurt about getting banned, you can't really claim that "it isn't Conservatives who are fighting this."
If those banned conservatives knew how to make an argument without lying, repeating false information, calling for violence, or anything else that is clearly prohibited in the terms of use, then maybe they wouldn't be ba
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're doing something the homosexuals don't like (like not decorating a cake for their "wedding"). Then, a private business owner has no rights at all.
Wow considering the baker won that case your post is even dumber than it would appear on the surface. And it was already an incredibly dumb post, but you knew this already which is why you posted AC.
I'm guessing you don't even standby your own retarded opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The SCOTUS determined a business does have the right to "cancel" a customer, if the business owner's religious beliefs are being offended.
Actually, no they didn't. The SCOTUS ruling in that case only said that a state agency cannot be blatantly prejudiced/biased against one party when deciding discrimination cases. While I completely support laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, I also understood the SCOTUS ruling; the state panel hearing the discrimination case were giant dicks that didn't bother pretending to be interested in a fair hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YOUR SHIT IS IN EVERYONE ELSE'S WAY
That's the architect's fault. They're primarily thinking about aesthetics and it doesn't always dawn on them that space needs to be allocated for the mechanical systems in a home. Screw it, you can just put in mini-splits and have fun replacing them when the evaporators all start leaking in 5-8 years.
Please fuck off with your $3,000 bill.
Here in Florida I think you could legally shoot the tech who charges $3k for changing a filter and a blower motor, because they're robbing you. Most of the companies that pull that sort of shit are run by in
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but if the hotels setup a lobby for public discussion, welcomed speakers from outside, and it came to pass that pretty much all the talking was being done in those hotels
What you said changes absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Under current laws, no - but that doesn't mean its morally justified and/or that the laws cannot be changed.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I think our culture has veered too far into self-censorship and demanding co
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Usenet died because of spam and an antiquated UI, not because discussions were unmoderated.
When a site is specifically built for the purpose of communications, then the only moderation that should be tolerated is the removal of blatantly illegal content (child porn, direct calls to violence, etc), or spam (either automated duplicative posts to drown out discussion or mass commercial advertisements not sold by the company).
You can be banned from many platforms these days for expressing viewpoints that 90+% o
Re: (Score:3)
If that were true, then its successor would have been much the same, except with a better UI and spam filtering. Slashdot's moderation is very much as you describe. Evidently I like it since here I still am. But why did reddit eat slashdot's lunch? Where are the masses?
What people want to attend is church, and that isn't changing with the downfall of religion. The want to meet with like-minded individuals wh
Re: (Score:2)
If the people on the far right are in charge, they often try to censor speech that they find morally disturbing. If the people on the far left are in charge, they often try to censor speech that THEY find disturbing.
Can you clarify the distinction you're making between left and right? For instance, are you saying that people deem things to be morally disturbing that they don't personally find disturbing? Or that people want to ban things they find personally disturbing that they don't think are morally disturbing? Can you give examples?
I don't have to bake your cake (Score:2)
or host your take
Re: (Score:3)
most notably in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.[301] In that case, the Court unanimously ruled that while the First Amendment may allow private property owners to prohibit trespass by political speakers and petition-gatherers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except that applies to town squares as they exist in meatspace. Twitter is more akin to a broadcaster or publisher. Can you legally force your way onto a TV network or demand that your book be printed?
Re: (Score:2)
Too funny that happened in the state conservatives absolutely loathe, California.
Re: (Score:3)
However the court held that the state of california could require the shopping center to facilitate free speech under the California Constitution.
>you have never heard of property easements before
Re: (Score:2)
That would work for a number of weeks, until everyone realizes that everyone joins but doesn't actually post any content there, instead continuing to post to Twitter. And legally I don't believe he could enforce any kind of disqualification clause for continuing to use Twitter under anti-competitive business practice laws, but I'm not a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me help you out here because you seem to not be seeing it. Twitter's servers are the 21st century analog to the printing presses at the New York Times. If you want to compel Twitter to publish something that they don't want to, then it's directly applicable to the New York Times being compelled into publishing something. And since public pressure isn't getting that compulsory publishing done, that means the government would need to do it, and that's forbidden under the 1st Amendment and pursuant case
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't want to buy Twitter. He wants out. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's obvious the dude doesn't want to buy twitter at all. He wanted to get on the board, but screwed up. Now he's just got a bunch of shares but still has limited authority to do anything. BUT, now that he's realized he's screwed up and can't legally take a seat on the board, if he sold his shares now he would basically be admitting that he was only buying the shares to get on the board, and thus admitting to breaking the law. So he's stuck.
SO, he's put forward this ridiculous "I'm gonna buy the whole company" thing. (He can't. He simply doesn't have that kind of cash. He's *worth* a lot, but that's almost ALL in ownership of various companies. Billionaires don't literally have a warehouse somewhere filled with cash. That would be really stupid.) He doesn't intend to buy anything. He wants the board to deny him the sale so that he can say "Welp, guess they don't want my help at all. Gonna sell my shares now." Then he'll cash out.
Re: (Score:2)
He wanted to get on the board, but screwed up.
You mean he screwed up by declining the invitation to do the very thing you suggest he desires? I'm confused by your comment. Did he not get invited to the board? Or am I missing something?
Re:He doesn't want to buy Twitter. He wants out. (Score:5, Informative)
You are missing something. After buying 5% of the company he was supposed to announce his intent. He didn't do that. Then he was "invited" onto the board, but if he accepted he would be breaking the law -or at least likely be sued and have to explain himself to a court. If he had to go to court, it's likely that discovery would find plenty of evidence showing that he wanted to get on the board, in which case he would be in trouble with the SEC again.
This would probably get him a piddly fine from the SEC, but at worst (depending on what they find during discovery) could turn into a criminal case and send him to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
You are missing something.
I'm shocked, lol.
After buying 5% of the company he was supposed to announce his intent. He didn't do that.
That makes sense, much appreciated. Rich people and their money: A game I'll never understand, much less ever get to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they did. And a few of the members of the board are suing him now because he failed to do so (probably more people will sue too).
As I said, it'll probably end up with the SEC slapping him with a fine for failing to file the right paper work. Don't worry, I'm sure the dude will be okay.
Re: (Score:2)
But you would need a bank that would be willing to spot you $43 Billion.
Even for billionaires, that's a big ask. Heck, that's a lot for most nations.
Funny Twitter and a poison pill (Score:2)
Is Elon Musk... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought he was Delos D. Harriman [wikipedia.org] the Man Who Sold the Moon [wikipedia.org]
he doesn't have to provide anything but money (Score:2)
The offer is there, they can take the cash or shut the fuck up.
Musk doesn't have to tell anyone what he's going to do with it.
Why does the board want to stop this? (Score:2)
I don't know all that much about corporate boards in publicly traded companies but I do know they are generally required to do what's good for the shareholders.
And assuming that's the case, how is someone offering to pay more for shares than they are worth on the open market not good for the shareholders? (at least to the point that the shareholders should be the ones to say yes or no and not the board)
Re:Why do they need to fight it? (Score:5, Informative)
They can recommend that the shareholders not sell, but they can't force them. The Board of Directors are, ultimately, just hired help to keep the business running smoothly.
Re:Twitt-l-er (Score:5, Funny)
I would love to see it closed down. Nuke the site from orbit, so to speak. It's the only way to be sure...
Re: (Score:2)
imo, this is just the op's form of public masturbation, and they have little else to do with their time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, you might get some on you [youtube.com]