Charlie G
Elio Addict
After spending a little time reflecting, I have come to to some soft conclusions:
They keep comparing themselves to Ford and Tucker, I imagine some sort of scene where Paul reveals his creation and it's a turning point for the company that really starts the momentum. They want investors, and they need to make a splash to get their attention. Leaking the information slowly would hinder that.
Hopefully this logic doesn't come off as disjointed, in summary either:
- It's Paul's absence, not an investor.
- Given the PR cluster%^#$ of the last delay, they know what this one will do for public opinion. I can't imagine any other person's absence warranting a delay when compared to the alternative.
- Given #1, I have 2 options to consider:
- They're lying because the engine has a problem. We can hem and haw about "back channel sources" etc. but from an empirical standpoint, we can't state for sure everything is O.K. until we see it or have some sort of official announcement.
- Or they're not.
- IF they're not lying, and they're not currently running damage control trying to placate us with partial information tidbits - the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that they anticipate something happening which would offset this setback PR-wise.
They keep comparing themselves to Ford and Tucker, I imagine some sort of scene where Paul reveals his creation and it's a turning point for the company that really starts the momentum. They want investors, and they need to make a splash to get their attention. Leaking the information slowly would hinder that.
Hopefully this logic doesn't come off as disjointed, in summary either:
- they feel they're golden and can get away with this for some reason yet to be seen
- or they're making seriously ill-advised PR decisions
- or they're screwed.