No I don't speculate on what other aliases you may have used. It is clear that you are not in control of you faculties so it is irrelevant. But clearly not as intelligent as Tek. You are not even close to being in his league.
No I don't speculate on what other aliases you may have used. It is clear that you are not in control of you faculties so it is irrelevant. But clearly not as intelligent as Tek. You are not even close to being in his league.
Well you're just a Tekstud!
So there!
(hey I'm getting the hang of this aren't I?)
I have control of a finger tho - it's right in front of the screen in response for the personal attack you ... you Tekstudder.
(I am getting the hang of this - cool!)
Moving back to the topic - did Gawker - in NY ever have the phone?
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"...
Interestingly, this is a perfect description of the comments on articles over at Gizmodo. Giz is famous for doing exactly that (Brian Lam's "ban hammer"); for basically shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with the Gizmodo group think.
On the topic of the actual article, at least we will soon know who the actual original thief is if the police are investigating.
Anyone who doesn't believe Gizmodo's whiny little dudes aren't going to immediately tell the Cops who they bought it off of is dreaming. The fact that they bought stolen goods is a slam dunk and once the Police inform Mr. Lam and Mr. Chen of exactly what the possible jail-time for that is they are going to sing like the little scared birdies they are.
The guy who actually stole the phone and got the $5,000 is going to be thrown to the wolves in 3, 2, 1 ...
Personal attacks aside (oh that stung too), I still don't see the law applying to NY as defined in CA, I don't see the source of the Twitter holding the phone (how he's going to jail is going to be tricky since it never went to NY), I don't see any charges, I don't see how something that happened in CA is going to get a bunch of pictures sent out of NY getting someone in NY arrested for possession of something they didn't have.
But then possession seems to be key in all this last I checked.
But don't mind me - I'm so smug I call people morons. I'm that smug.
Man, you are thick. Did you read the link in my post? Apple's head lawyer said Gizmodo was in possession of the phone. I understand that you get off on arguing just for the sake of it, and you will continue to shift the argument even when blatantly proven wrong.
Maybe this will help you with the concept of possession.
1. Jason Chen works for Gizmodo:
2. This is Jason Chen holding the phone:
Is that getting through?
As for the law, multiple people have already linked to pertinent laws/statutes in both CA and NY which would seem to make this phone stolen property.
Interestingly, this is a perfect description of the comments on articles over at Gizmodo. Giz is famous for doing exactly that (Brian Lam's "ban hammer"); for basically shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with the Gizmodo group think.
On the topic of the actual article, at least we will soon know who the actual original thief is if the police are investigating.
Anyone who doesn't believe Gizmodo's whiny little dudes aren't going to immediately tell the Cops who they bought it off of is dreaming. The fact that they bought stolen goods is a slam dunk and once the Police inform Mr. Lam and Mr. Chen of exactly what the possible jail-time for that is they are going to sing like the little scared birdies they are.
The guy who actually stole the phone and got the $5,000 is going to be thrown to the wolves in 3, 2, 1 ...
If Apple actually decides to hand Gawker a ton of page-views in protracting this - yes - I think the person who actually got the money and found the phone in the first place is going to be thrown under a bus. They already outed the engineer. Why not.
Still think it would be insane to give Gawker more ratings tho. Is Apple that petty?
Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.
(And while Chen might be liable - how is that going to touch Nick in NY who never had the phone? That's still being side-stepped I see - ok I lied about the thread being dropped)
Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.
Co'mon guy. You are not thick (smug perhaps). Anyway... who took the video? Can you rise to the challenge?
Co'mon guy. You are not thick (smug perhaps). Anyway... who took the video? Can you rise to the challenge?
No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?
No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?
Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.
(And while Chen might be liable - how is that going to touch Nick in NY who never had the phone? That's still being side-stepped I see - ok I lied about the thread being dropped)
And just as predicted, the arguments shift yet again. Now he has 2 lines of arguments with which to entertain himself! Nick owns Gawker which owns Gizmodo, and he authorized the payment.
I honestly couldn't care about your new toy (what Apple has to gain). Your intention is to argue, not discuss, and you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about. It's too bad your actual arguments are weak.
No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?
"Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied that Gizmodo was in the clear. Moreover, Denton says Gizmodo, having reaped its page view harvest, is working to learn the identity of the person who lost possession of the phone and will return it to that person, or to anyone who establishes a legal claim to it."
There is Nick Denton admitting that his company bought the phone. It's too bad he asked a former British barrister for a legal opinion on California laws.
Comments
We really need some west coast moderating, I'd vote for you.
Oops I missed that - who am I again? I thought I was Tekstuddly? Now I'm MacTripper? So much nerd projecting (or is it paranoia?) here. Wow.
Is this how this forum works? If I don't agree I'm one of a dozen nerds that you disagreed with in the past?
Just making sure. Because I find that really sad and nerdy (as opposed to white and nerdy).
Basically you're saying that I must be someone else so that invalidates everything I say, in a weird sort of nerd-logic kind of way. Gotit.
Well, you're just Tekstud so I guess I shouldn't get too worked up.
(did I do it right? - I'm new to this nerd-paranoid fantasy game)
No I don't speculate on what other aliases you may have used. It is clear that you are not in control of you faculties so it is irrelevant. But clearly not as intelligent as Tek. You are not even close to being in his league.
Well you're just a Tekstud!
So there!
(hey I'm getting the hang of this aren't I?)
I have control of a finger tho - it's right in front of the screen in response for the personal attack you ... you Tekstudder.
(I am getting the hang of this - cool!)
Moving back to the topic - did Gawker - in NY ever have the phone?
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"...
Interestingly, this is a perfect description of the comments on articles over at Gizmodo. Giz is famous for doing exactly that (Brian Lam's "ban hammer"); for basically shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with the Gizmodo group think.
On the topic of the actual article, at least we will soon know who the actual original thief is if the police are investigating.
Anyone who doesn't believe Gizmodo's whiny little dudes aren't going to immediately tell the Cops who they bought it off of is dreaming. The fact that they bought stolen goods is a slam dunk and once the Police inform Mr. Lam and Mr. Chen of exactly what the possible jail-time for that is they are going to sing like the little scared birdies they are.
The guy who actually stole the phone and got the $5,000 is going to be thrown to the wolves in 3, 2, 1 ...
Well you're just a Tekstud!
So there!
(hey I'm getting the hang of this aren't I?)
Hey! NoNo boy, you seem to have lost your concentration. You had agreed that Jason Chen took the video himself, right?
Personal attacks aside (oh that stung too), I still don't see the law applying to NY as defined in CA, I don't see the source of the Twitter holding the phone (how he's going to jail is going to be tricky since it never went to NY), I don't see any charges, I don't see how something that happened in CA is going to get a bunch of pictures sent out of NY getting someone in NY arrested for possession of something they didn't have.
But then possession seems to be key in all this last I checked.
But don't mind me - I'm so smug I call people morons. I'm that smug.
Man, you are thick. Did you read the link in my post? Apple's head lawyer said Gizmodo was in possession of the phone. I understand that you get off on arguing just for the sake of it, and you will continue to shift the argument even when blatantly proven wrong.
Maybe this will help you with the concept of possession.
1. Jason Chen works for Gizmodo:
2. This is Jason Chen holding the phone:
Is that getting through?
As for the law, multiple people have already linked to pertinent laws/statutes in both CA and NY which would seem to make this phone stolen property.
Interestingly, this is a perfect description of the comments on articles over at Gizmodo. Giz is famous for doing exactly that (Brian Lam's "ban hammer"); for basically shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with the Gizmodo group think.
On the topic of the actual article, at least we will soon know who the actual original thief is if the police are investigating.
Anyone who doesn't believe Gizmodo's whiny little dudes aren't going to immediately tell the Cops who they bought it off of is dreaming. The fact that they bought stolen goods is a slam dunk and once the Police inform Mr. Lam and Mr. Chen of exactly what the possible jail-time for that is they are going to sing like the little scared birdies they are.
The guy who actually stole the phone and got the $5,000 is going to be thrown to the wolves in 3, 2, 1 ...
If Apple actually decides to hand Gawker a ton of page-views in protracting this - yes - I think the person who actually got the money and found the phone in the first place is going to be thrown under a bus. They already outed the engineer. Why not.
Still think it would be insane to give Gawker more ratings tho. Is Apple that petty?
Man, you are thick.
Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.
(And while Chen might be liable - how is that going to touch Nick in NY who never had the phone? That's still being side-stepped I see - ok I lied about the thread being dropped)
Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.
Co'mon guy. You are not thick (smug perhaps). Anyway... who took the video? Can you rise to the challenge?
What is 55 and counting?
Gizmodo will reward you $5,000 in NY, if you get the correct answer.
CGC
Co'mon guy. You are not thick (smug perhaps). Anyway... who took the video? Can you rise to the challenge?
No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?
No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?
So you are back in the game! Next question then.
Who is holding the prototype on the video?
(Stay with me we are still in California)
So you are back in the game! Next question then.
Who is holding the prototype on the video?
(Stay with me we are still in California)
Someone not Nick - who runs / owns Gawker media in NY.
Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.
(And while Chen might be liable - how is that going to touch Nick in NY who never had the phone? That's still being side-stepped I see - ok I lied about the thread being dropped)
And just as predicted, the arguments shift yet again. Now he has 2 lines of arguments with which to entertain himself! Nick owns Gawker which owns Gizmodo, and he authorized the payment.
I honestly couldn't care about your new toy (what Apple has to gain). Your intention is to argue, not discuss, and you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about. It's too bad your actual arguments are weak.
Someone not Nick - who runs / owns Gawker media.
That's correct! But I did not ask who is NOT holding the phone, right?
Who is holding the phone?
Go on, it is not that difficult
That's correct! But I did not ask who is NOT holding the phone, right?
Who is holding the phone?
Go on, it is not that difficult
A person who won't put "Gawker in jail" because he's not in NY holding a phone - getting it?
No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?
Does this help?
How Checkbook Journalism Gave Gizmodo Its iPhone Scoop There is Nick Denton admitting that his company bought the phone. It's too bad he asked a former British barrister for a legal opinion on California laws.