88
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: +
no edit summary
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)
:::Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)
:::Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)
::::Yes, Reuters and the WSJ provide news. Yet Reuters didn’t show their math and even admitted the limitations of their so-called conclusions. Your WSJ reference is dated, maybe try to obtain something more recent?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:35, 30 January 2014 (EST)