Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story

1679111221

Comments

  • Reply 160 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iStud View Post


    Co'mon, you are just copy-pasting that replay from a post addressed to you in another story!



    Can you substantiate your claims that my assertions where incorrect (regarding the story of the iPhone, not that you are Tekstud, that is obviously correct)?



    Yes - re-read EVERY story about the phone. It never left CA - done.



    Whew - almost broke a sweat.



    (like that sweaty hot Tekstud - he's so Tekstuddly! You seem to see him everywhere! But you do seem convinced I'm doing something with my hands (copy-paste ... WHAT?), sure you can't see my finger?)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 162 of 402
    istudistud Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    Yes - re-read EVERY story about the phone. It never left CA - done.



    everywhere!)



    Less than 10 words!



    Next question. Who paid $5000 for the prototype?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 163 of 402
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    At least you have mature arguments - no debate there. We now have a solid lock on the demographics here. Perhaps I can throw in some Pro-Wrestling references too. Don't want to overshoot the audience.





    Says the guy who can't stop drawing comparisons to theft and smoking pot. Sorry, to say you set the bar for immaturity would be an understatement, I'm sorry you can't find [sane] people who appreciate your presence.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 164 of 402
    2 cents2 cents Posts: 307member
    Dr.No now on ignore. √
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 165 of 402
    wow I just found the ignore list function, thank god for that!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 166 of 402
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Take a deep breath, stay clam and carry on.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 167 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iStud View Post


    Less than 10 words!



    Next question. Who paid $5000 for the prototype?



    Not Gawker - they paid for the story and the pics - they got nothing physical in NY - which they stole - but didn't have.



    OW! Still hurts.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 168 of 402
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gchriste View Post


    wow I just found the ignore list function, thank god for that!



    samesies. kid is a real piece of work.. a true example of why you don't inbreed..
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 169 of 402
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Hey, MacTripper, if you would have been more civil with your comments you may have actually made a valid point.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 170 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Sweaters View Post


    Says the guy who can't stop drawing comparisons to theft and smoking pot. Sorry, to say you set the bar for immaturity would be an understatement, I'm sorry you can't find [sane] people who appreciate your presence.



    Says the person who missed the point on the laws pertaining to both. What level of reading comprehension are we talking about again?



    (BODY SLAM! WCW style! Oh yaaaaaaaa snap into a slim jim! - gotta keep those demographics satisfied)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 171 of 402
    talustalus Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    What does that have to do with ANYTHING? They paid for a story and pictures from a freelancer, and he's the editor / owner of Gawker - but hey - nice twitter!



    WOW - does anyone here even know how this all went down? And after having that accurate scenario info - you're going to apply law to it too?



    OW ow ow - hurt hurt hurt....





    OK, let's just end this now. You pretty clearly got schooled on the law showing it's not legal in either CA or NY to keep, let alone sell, found property. You've annoyingly ignored the posts pointing out applicable NY laws, which don't really matter anyway, because you can't commit a crime in one state and then just run to another state and say neener neener.



    So now, you've switched your argument to some alternate reality version of how things went down, in which an unaffiliated, rogue freelancer paid $5k for the prototype, then photographed it, held it on camera, and took it apart. But here on planet Earth, here's how it went down.



    - Gizmodo/Denton has admitted to paying for the phone.

    - Gizmodo editor Jason Chen took video of himself holding the phone.

    - Gizmodo said they themselves took it apart to show the insides, but could only go so far because they didn't want to return it to Apple broken (even though they very well might have broken it).

    - Lastly, Bruce Sewell, Apple's VP and General Counsel, sent an official letter to Gizmodo. This letter says Gizmodo is in possession of the phone and Brian Lam smugly tells Bruce that Jason Chen has the phone.



    Welcome to school, you smug moron.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 172 of 402
    macnycmacnyc Posts: 342member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    They (perhaps) broke a California law. Gawker (owners of Gizmodo) is based in NYC. So what.







    Hey - I got an idea - medical pot is legal in California - light up a joint in front of a policeman in New York City. Or a DEA office in Washington DC. Let me know how that works out for you, and don't forget to forward me the mug-shots.







    Your comparison makes no sense. I am not a lawyer so I won't argue what the law is and where, but:



    According to you, Gizmodo didn't break a law because they are based in NYC where it's not illegal.



    The proper comparison would be that you smoked medical pot in California (where it's legal) but it was obtained from NYC (where it's illegal)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 173 of 402
    istudistud Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    Not Gawker - they paid for the story and the pics - they got nothing physical in NY - which they stole - but didn't have.







    Next question. Who took the pictures?



    And by the way, your sentence says that they stole NY, but they didn't have it. That was weird.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 174 of 402
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Hey, MacTripper, if you would have been more civil with your comments you may have actually made a valid point.



    We really need some west coast moderating, I'd vote for you.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 175 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Sweaters View Post


    samesies. kid is a real piece of work.. a true example of why you don't inbreed..



    Alright - that's what we're talking about - point - proven, we have Disney Channel confirmation!



    Off the rim 3 points! Now go to bed before you Dad catches you on the computer.



    Moving right along - can you talk about the topic or just attack people?



    (topic? what topic! I get the impression this is a nerd circle jerk - why talk about the topic now right?)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 176 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iStud View Post


    Next question. Who took the pictures?



    And by the way, your sentence says that they stole NY, but they didn't have it. That was weird.



    The freelancer - and here's a question back atcha - is a freelancer an employee of Gawker?



    Tick tock tick tock.



    Ding!



    No.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 177 of 402
    istudistud Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    The freelancer -







    Ah! Wrong answer! You were doing so well!!! Pity. The correct answer was given away just above, and you missed it!



    - Gizmodo editor Jason Chen took video of himself holding the phone.



    But if you accept this answer, I'll let you continue in the game. And ask you the next question...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 178 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by talus View Post


    OK, let's just end this now. You pretty clearly got schooled on the law showing it's not legal in either CA or NY to keep, let alone sell, found property. You've annoyingly ignored the posts pointing out applicable NY laws, which don't really matter anyway, because you can't commit a crime in one state and then just run to another state and say neener neener.



    So now, you've switched your argument to some alternate reality version of how things went down, in which an unaffiliated, rogue freelancer paid $5k for the prototype, then photographed it, held it on camera, and took it apart. But here on planet Earth, here's how it went down.



    - Gizmodo/Denton has admitted to paying for the phone.

    - Gizmodo editor Jason Chen took video of himself holding the phone.

    - Gizmodo said they themselves took it apart to show the insides, but could only go so far because they didn't want to return it to Apple broken (even though they very well might have broken it).

    - Lastly, Bruce Sewell, Apple's VP and General Counsel, sent an official letter to Gizmodo. This letter says Gizmodo is in possession of the phone and Brian Lam smugly tells Bruce that Jason Chen has the phone.



    Welcome to school, you smug moron.



    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.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 179 of 402
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    I fault Apple Insider Moderators and Webmasters for allowing the continued descent of this forum to the abyss.



    I am not big on banning or ignoring people, no matter how I may disagree with them. Personally, I do not believe in not responding to falsehoods and not pointing out avasions ... because that may be misconstrued by the less informed.



    But, come on, there must be a limit.



    Also, if it is true that there are people who keep on popping up, masquerading under different usernames... that must not me be let to fester.



    I am not techie, but if Apple Insider cannot find a more effective solution to this problems, what is the point of having a forum?



    It has been PALATABLE interacting with you! What??? *sigh* [Refer to previous posts if you did not get this.]







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iStud View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

    palatable?



    roflmao



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Sweaters View Post


    if this is how he argues points, I'm afraid to ask how he was potty-trained.



    At least, a few people understood the nuance.



    CGC
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 180 of 402
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Sweaters View Post


    samesies. kid is a real piece of work.. a true example of why you don't inbreed..



    Not inbred, hatched.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.