Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone - Page 8

It seems like I got the point exactly, then. At least I think so.

I told the other guy that you aren't a "shill", a conclusion that is supported by your response. And I basically suggested that you like to dally a bit in argument when you have time to do so... a perfect reason for playing Devil's advocate. Is that not truly the case?

Your manner throughout this exchange is this: you are having fun with the debate, honing your skills at intellectual challenges, probing here, thrusting there. And then I said that that is just like us. And I have no problem with it. (Edit: except perhaps you called me out a little too harshly in the early goings because of misunderstandings.)

Was there some other point you thought I was making or that you meant to make?

Thompson

I am not repeating a response. I am wait for you to actually respond to my question.

Still waiting for you to tie them hearing Hogan's story as proof of them knowing it was stolen. I think you realize your mistake, hence you continuing to repeat the reasons you believe it was stolen property.

Let's play this simple game: Let's say it was stolen. Now that is out of the way, please don't present reasons it was stolen property, we get that. truly, I believe you. Really.

Now, how would hearing Hogan's story prove it was stolen? Like I said and you conveniently ignored, I could tell you all sorts of tall tales. My telling you these stories isn't proof that they are true. Could you even consider that Hogan, upstanding citizen that he is, might not be an entirely truthful individual? And that Giz might then have had doubts about all or parts of his story? That his story to Giz doesn't prove anything? That Giz's, 3 weeks later saying the now believe his story doesn't mean they believed it 3 weeks earlier? You stated that his story (or rather them retelling his story weeks later after convincing themselves it was real) was proof the knew at the time that it was stolen. Do you believe everything someone tells you?

His story wasn't proof of anything, let alone proof of what Giz knew. You have yet to present an argument that actual deals with this part of your logic gap...other than to continually repeat reasons that it was stolen. Strange. Almost seems intentionally obtuse.

Probably. I don't recall. Keep getting interrupted with work...

I'm sure that that would be the case for any policy that Apple has in place for the prototype iPhone testing. And that's what most corporations would have you believe about all of their training too. But I have been involved in such "corporate training" exercises for decades now, first with the Air Force, then with Lockheed Martin, and finally with my present employer (I'll keep that personal, if you don't mind). And the way they are administered and enforced does absolutely nothing to reduce the chances of occurrence. But what it does do is transfer much of the responsibility onto the shoulders of individuals. This will depend on the details of the case, of course. But here, where the victim we're talking about is actually the company, I think their policies will probably help them out a great deal.


These policies, when made explicit and agreed to be the employee, and when the only victim is the company itself (as seems the case here, so far) often cause the light to fall on the specific parties that broke the rules (perhaps Powell) and/or the law (Hogan and Gizmodo).



I'm sure we'll find out that under the circumstances (i.e. that field testing must get done) that Apple did the best they could and that Gizmodo pulled a slick one to finish the deed.

THompson

Well, I think maybe you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that any way you cut it, after hearing Hogan's story, Gizmodo was damn sure that he wasn't the rightful owner. If you try to buy the iPhone at that point, you are buying stolen property.

Where the other poster is getting into trouble with you is that he is bothering to try to "cut it up" into possibilities. He should have just stated my bold sentence above and left it at that. Here's his cut up, though, not that it matters:

Do you agree that Hogan told Gizmodo that he attempted to return the phone by calling Apple Care? Even assuming they believe such a weird suggestion by Hogan, what's Gizmodo to make of it? Here are the possibilities, as far as they knew at that point:

(1) Apple is, in fact, the owner. In that case, Hogan is not the owner. Purchasing it so soon under this condition equates to purchasing stolen property.

(2) Apple is not actually the owner. In that case, Hogan hasn't made a sufficient attempt to contact the owner, and once again the property cannot be purchased.

Either way you cut it, Gizmodo knows after hearing Hogan's story that he is not the rightful owner.

All of this is entertaining, to say the least, because it doesn't seem like you've made any attempt whatsoever to suggest how there is any circumstance under which this could not be considered a case of receiving stolen merchandise.

It is clear that Gizmodo acquired the device through illegal means, and that trumps the negligence argument, so the trade secrets issue is not looking good either.

Interestingly enough, there is also the third charge: damaging property. Who can argue that one? At least its probably not a harsh punishment.

Thompson

Upon hearing the story from Hogan, with only his story to rely on, could there not have also beed additional options for them to believe?
(4) Hogan bought it on Taiwan and is trying to pull a fast one on Giz?
(5) Hogan bought it off a skilled electronic engineer as a curiosity and is trying to pull and fast one on Giz?
(6) Other ways it could be a hoax.

How can one take the fact the Giz was convinced of his story 3 weeks later as proof that they were convinced it was not Hogans to sell without seeing it?

Hasn't Gizmodo itself presented the argument that they believed Hogan had done everything in his power to return the phone? In that case, hoax or not, they would be saying that they believed it was not his property. Am I working from that false premise? Could be, I suppose. If Gizmodo DID make that statement, your argument is trash. Otherwise...

So, if Gizmodo never made such a statement, I suppose the alternative circumstances you pose above are in the realm of logical possibilities. But they are nowhere near the realm of common sense. Let's go with that for a second...

Suppose someone walks up to you and says "this item is very valuable and isn't mine, but I want to sell it to you anyway". Then you buy it for $5K. Later, it turns out that the original statement was true, i.e. the item really did not belong to the person you bought it from. Somehow I don't think the answer "well, I really didn't believe him. I figured it might be his after all and he was just pulling a hoax on me" is going to be met with much head nodding. After all, you just placed a $5K bet on the fact that he was being honest.

Your devil's advocate tinkering is entertaining, and perhaps good exercise for the brain, but at the end of the day, a debate that tries to support the notion that Gizmodo did no wrong is going to lose. And just in case you want to say that you were never actually supporting any side, I would point out that that is the topic that brought me into this thread to begin with. My assertion is that Gizmodo is guilty of much, supported by the elements we have discussed today, and if you intend to engage on that assertion then eventually you should strongly make a counter point. At least one that is believable.

Thompson

They said, after they were able to examine it that they believed his story. They have not said they believed it at the time.


That's the thing. They hedged their bets. They agreed to pay him, but withheld a large portion for after confirmation. That by itself shows they didn't fully believe his story.

I could offer to sell you a device I bought in China. If I was knowledgeable and resourceful enough I might even be able to research genuine looking stickers to put on it. As a blogger in all things Apple, that might be good bait to get you interested. I could make up some story to try to convince you that it wasn't a counterfeit. My story might be good enough to tempt you into paying me for it, on the chance it was real, but being a smart person, you withhold part of the payment until it can be confirmed to be real. That would imply you were not sure of its status...that would change once you got a good look at and in it. If at that point you say you now believe my story, that doesn't retroactively mean you believed it when I first approached you. This is what SJR asserted...that their after-examinination story of believing Hogan means they knew it was stolen when he approached them. It is not proof of that.

This doesn't absolve Giz of anything.


I am in no way trying to say they did no wrong. I am simply pointing out that it is irrational to say that because Giz said they believed Hogan's story after they looked it over is proof that they knew it was stolen (or dropped out of Hogan's ass) before they ever saw the thing.

What's irrational is your incessant defense of Gizmodo even though it's clear that they are in the wrong.

Let's try it one more time.

Someone approaches Gizmodo with what looks like a prototype Apple phone. They claim to have called Apple (although it's not clear that they actually claimed that or Gizmodo made it up, but we'll accept it for now).

Now, let's assume the following:
- You can't prove that it's an Apple phone
- Assume that they actually did call Apple
- The phone must either be an Apple phone or a non-Apple phone

Now, given those assumptions, Gizmodo had to be in the wrong. Let's say that Gizmodo believed it to be an Apple phone. If so, then Hogan had no right to sell it.

Now, let's say Gizmodo believed it NOT to be an Apple phone. If so, calling Apple would not be a reasonable effort to find the owner, so Hogan STILL would not have the right to sell it.

Also, Gizmodo apparently knew at the time who the phone belonged to because of the Facebook site. They even published that they knew the owner. Therefore, the finder has an affirmative obligation to return it.

More importantly, regardless of whether it's an Apple phone or not, under CA law, a 'found' item does not become the property of the finder for either 90 or 180 days - EVEN IF they make a reasonable effort to find the owner. So no matter what, Hogan did not have the right to sell it at that time.

Your incessant denial of the fact that Gizmodo was not only wrong, but had to know that they were wrong is just plain baffling.

Smart roommate.

But why'd she even let the guy near her computer? Surely he has his own?....Or can get one for $5000?

You are still so very confused. Is it so very for you to understand that I am not defending Giz in anyway here? You really don't understand that? I don't have time to hold your hand through this much longer. But let's give it a shot.


You almost had it there, but you lost it again. If Giz did not believe any, most or all of Hogan's story, then calling Apple, a part of his story, would be more than just not a reasonable effort. It would also have been unnecessary. If it wasn't Apple's, then it might have been Hogans. Therefore his tale of calling Apple wouldn't have been a legal requirement and would have been part of his tall tale.

Do you really not get that? Is there someone at you office you might ask to explain it to you? If Giz felt Hogan might not be being honest, they might have felt he was pulling a hoax and selling a phone he bought in China or Mexico.

See, his story to them wasn't proof to them of anything. IT WAS A STORY to get them to buy it from them. They obviously had reservation about his story, so the withheld part of the payment. It turns out most of his story was true and therefore he had no right to sell it and it was indeed stolen property. That doesn't retroactively mean Giz had to know this prior to seeing the phone.

I am going to be clear here again, hopefully you will understand these words...I will keep them small for you:
This doesn't defend or absolve Giz of anything. Nothing. At all.
That doesn't change the fact that your 'logic' of "well, Hogan told a story, therefore that is proof that Giz knew it was stolen" just doesn't hold water. YES IT WAS LIKELY STOLEN AND GIZ IS GUILTY. But them stating, after they looked at the phone, that they now believe Hogan's tale now DOES NOT PROVE THEY BELIEVED IT BEFORE THE LOOKED AT IT.



You just made that up. Please keep your discussions honest. Hogan had the facebook info. The phone was none functional when Giz looked at it. All they had, again, was a name provided by Hogan. After invetigating that info, they were convinced Powell was the person that lost the phone and published it.

All the had when they spoke to Hogan was Hogan's word that he found a facebook acct for Powell but had no ability to show this acct on the iPhone. They published it after they investigated and determined that it was Powell.


Are you serious? Do you honestly think I am arguing otherwise? Of course Hogan had no right to sell it. No question. How many posts do I have to repeat this?


I am sorry, but you must be hallucinating. I have not denied Giz was wrong. Again, please try to stay honest. Misrepresenting what I have said is insulting and shows either more confusion or dishonesty on your part.

I am stating that your logic was very poor. I had hoped you would understand basic logic and reasoning. False hope I suppose.

to refresh your memory, my point is:
Hogan's tale is not proof that Hogan's tale was true. Giz relating Hogans tale, after they were convinced it was true, is not proof that they believed his story when they first heard it. This doesn't defend or absolve Giz.

A lawyer should understand that. Even in court, testimony itself is not proof of the veracity of the testimony itself. A lawyer should understand and hopefully avoid such shallow, simple, circular logic. Hopefully.

get it yet?

Yes, I get it. You're delusional.

There's no point in further discussion. You simply ignore everything that anyone posts while simultaneously ignoring all the facts of the case.

Let's not. That's just a tired rhetorical trick you are attempting to employ. On top of the same old tired reasoning. Rhetorical doesn't play well when you strip away the fruffery and just examine the underlying statements made by the protagonists in this little drama. When compared to those statements your logic has all the power of three day wet toilet tissue.

See, that where you continue to wallow in confusion. This discussion you and I have been having isn't about the case a whole. It was about a specific comment you made that was clearly illogical and wrong. It has been about your pattern of posting inaccurate information. I take issue with people that post dishonest or misleading information, and your posts always seem to drop in a few fallacies. I would write most of them off as you being misinformed, but when you continue to be aggressive in avoiding the discussion of the question of your 'mistakes', would would seem an intentional attempt to mislead.

HI HIRO! Nice to see you jump in again without any contribution to the discussion

As I said, you're delusional - there's no point in your continuing to prove the point any further.

Given a choice between delusional or dishonest, I suppose I would be happy to choose delusional. We all have a choice in how we demonstrate our character and integrity. You have shown yours.


It's too bad really. Sometimes, you can have some interesting and insightful posts. But without integrity, does that matter?

Except that you're delusional about others' alleged dishonesty, as well.

Oh, this is a fun game you have. Let's see how his works:
Except that you're [dishonest] about others' alleged [delusions], as well.

Oh boy, that is fun. Is the rest of the game where you resort to insults when someone makes a request for some honesty from you?

To be honest, I still can't decide if your misrepresentation of facts is dishonesty or confusion. You don't seem very stupid and while I am obviously delusional, you generally seem fairly lucid. But you unable to stick to the facts and become quite enraged when facts are presented that appear to counter your position. I am honestly puzzled Seth, very puzzled.

Or, maybe we could look at what everyone else seems to be saying about you:

Hiro:
"That's just a tired rhetorical trick you are attempting to employ. On top of the same old tired reasoning."

thompr:
"Your devil's advocate tinkering is entertaining, and perhaps good exercise for the brain, but at the end of the day, a debate that tries to support the notion that Gizmodo did no wrong is going to lose. And just in case you want to say that you were never actually supporting any side, I would point out that that is the topic that brought me into this thread to begin with. My assertion is that Gizmodo is guilty of much, supported by the elements we have discussed today, and if you intend to engage on that assertion then eventually you should strongly make a counter point. At least one that is believable."

So no one seems to believe that you have any intelligent responses.

Sure, some people don't like what I post. Hiro is an odd example for you to embrace, given his history. thompr might not believe I post intelligent responses, you would have to ask him. I suppose we could go browsing to find a few posters that have issues with your posts. There seem to be quite a few these days. In any case, is this still part of your game?

Is this really your best attempt at avoiding a little honesty? Perhaps my responses are less than intelligent. Perhaps they are over your head a bit. They are, however, honest. Can you even try to claim the same?

"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
- George Carlin

What do you know? You've finally made a true statement.


Absolutely. You haven't shown any reason to believe otherwise, anyway. The fact that you're in denial about Gizmodo knowingly purchasing stolen property doesn't change the fact that my posts are 100% accurate.

One of many. Nice dodge.


100%? Let's review some of your recent posts.


Mostly truthful. Except you have no idea if that call was made or not. You are basing that on a single article (Wired?) that said the roommate offered to call but that it was unknown if the call was made. That is not the same as "which apparently never happened according to Hogan". Unless of course you have a quote from Hogan or the police report where Hogan explicitly says no calls were ever made.

But there was no need to distort the truth to make your point. In a different thread, much earlier, you knew this. You stated:

At this time you were aware that Hogan claimed a friend offered to call. You knew someone said they don't know that this call was actually made. So, why did you later feel the need to massage the facts and state that Hogan said the call was never made?



I don't think this was an honest mistake. I think this was an intentional mis-stating of the facts. Gizmodo's story was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple. This doesn't mean he actually made any calls or that even if he did they constitute a reasonable effort. But it does mean Giz claimed multiple calls were made, not a single call as you wrote. Why would you change their statement like that?

Looking at just these posts we see that facts sometimes seem problematic to the point you are trying to make and you feel the need to change them to fit. The unfortunate thing, is that in those cases, your posts, without the liberties taken with the truth, would stand on their own. So why the need to twist and bend the facts?

So much for your 100%, hmm?

It's these little dishonesties that I take issue with. Never any grand lies, just little 'inaccuracies' meant to either bolster your point or paint a party in a more negative light. It is unfortunate.



Had to throw this one in for fun. Funny.

Honesty shouldn't be a challenge, but it should be the goal.

So you're relying on your distortion of the facts to try to prove that I was lying?

Sorry, but the REAL facts (not the voices in your head) back me up.

Wow.

A clear demonstration of your 'inaccuracies' and you think this backs up your claim of 100% accuracy? And you call me delusional? Nothing was distorted. Those are quotes are exactly what you wrote. They don't look very good in daylight, but you shouldn't try to distance yourself from them now by calling them distortions. At least be honest now and own your words.

If a man doesn't have his word, what does he have? It comes down to integrity, I guess.

Glad to be of service. I think your opinion of what is of value is a tad bit over-strained though.

There really isn't anything new to say from the side of rational thought, the actual evidence has been stated repeatedly in the early parts of this thread. Your choice to ignore it doesn't equate anyone else not having offered it. So don't equate my unwillingness to manufacture and pull ever new crapola out my arse sideways as lack of content. Noting the ever growing pile of logical dung in this thread is most definitely a contribution to the positive.

Amen.

Well, I'm not going to assert that Tulkas' responses have no intelligence in them. I would, however, question the motivation, execution, and value.

Here's an analogy:

You go to the horse track one day to enjoy the races and make some wagers. You engage in whatever logic (or other process) you use to come to your conclusions. Perhaps you actually own one of the horses. Whatever. But there you are, along with a few thousand other folks who are there for similar reasons.

But there in the crowd next to you is someone who is there for entirely different reasons. He doesn't much care about the horses themselves, or the results of the races. He is far more interested in observing stuff that he can critique. He has no horse in the race. He has no wager on the line. He recognizes that there is a risk in taking a position, and he avoids the risk. But he reserves the right to jump in with his opinion about anything and everything. He'll criticize the horse owners & trainers, if he observes anything that he could reasonably question. He'll criticize the logic that the other patrons present to support their conclusions, even though not specifically denying the conclusion. Hell, he'll even (lightly, of course) criticize himself if it manages to win a more significant argument.

This other fellow loves a battle of wits, especially when there is no risk. And winning the battle of wits is everything to him. If you deign to pull your attention from the race and engage him, he will gladly introduce new fronts to fight over, picking at your words, your motivations, your character. Meanwhile, his prime motivation is to display how logical he is. Everything else is secondary. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

That other person is Tulkas, and the issue of Gizmodo's guilt is one of the races associated with the "stolen iPhone" race day. Tulkas doesn't care who wins this race (or any other, for that matter). He's just looking for something - anything - to argue with, and then doing so. Once I realized that, I decided to turn and watch the race... pausing this once to turn to you and explain why this other fellow is acting this way, and suggesting you have two choices: (1) understand what he is doing and engage on that level, or (2) understand what he is doing and get back to watching the race.

Note that there is nothing particularly wrong with this behavior in the right setting (such as an anonymous place where people argue about stuff) and in the right manner. If done constructively, openly, and with the right motivation, playing devil's advocate can be a very helpful role for many intellectual endeavors. It has value. If not done constructively, or if just done for "points", the person is just being a horse's ass.

So as I said in the beginning, the question here is not about intelligence. The question is about motivation, execution, and value. You can decide how you answer that question (with respect to Tulkas) for yourself. The next question is what to do about it, continue or ignore.

Thompson

P.S. Clearly, this thread is pretty much dead, and rightly so. But people like Tulkas will show up to other "races", and they will behave the same way pretty much every time. So my closing advice for you with respect to Tulkas (continue or ignore) transcends this particular thread.

Actually, not a bad assessment. There are a few exceptions. I will often take a position, but only when reason dictates it is the right one. If one allows feelings for a 'side' be the driving and motivating force behind one's arguments, then one tends to fall into certain traps wrt to logic and honesty. I am not trying to prove my ability to use reason or logic, nor to prove that I am 'right'. It is more a matter of seeing and commenting on obvious mistakes and dishonest discussion. If it is an honest mistake, fine, a correction shouldn't be a problem, perhaps even welcome. I know I make mistakes and have no problem when some corrects me (politely). I also take issue with people that bully others to try to shut down opposing views. As your interaction with me shows, I can do the same and come off too harshly sometimes. This doesn't make it right and I don't think it reflects as my default behavior. Others seem to resort to this as their main tool and the occasional liberties with facts.

If someone tries to build a case to support their 'bet', they ought to be willing and able to back up the information they choose to use to make the case. Otherwise it just a lot of hot air.

Next time you are at a race track and engaging in conversations with the other patrons over what horses to bet on, see how well you make out by slipping 'inaccuracies' into your discussion. Start making things up about the jockeys, horses or the track to make your bet sound better and see if no one challenges those parts of your discussion. Or tell everyone else they have no right to comment and should shut up unless the are champion jockeys or trainers and that only your opinion matters (though strangely, you are also not an owner or trainer, but are exempt from your rule). Whether they have a bet in or not, your behavior is going to be questioned. Your 'decision' might be valid, but your behavior would not be. It might make someone question your individual statements instead of debating the whole of your argument. Hell, even some that agree with your argument as a whole might take issue with a small subset of your discussion point.

EDIT: anyway, we (I) have derailed this thread enough, so we can let this tangent die.