Sorry, but I'm not the one saying no one knows anything - that's your silly position.
My position is that we know what has been reported. Granted, we don't know if it's true, but we can work on the basis of what is public knowledge. For example, when talking about what Gizmodo knew, we can reasonably rely on what Gizmodo SAID at the time.
In this case, you're pretending that Gizmodo didn't know it was stolen. Let's look at the facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO:
- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy made 'a' call to AppleCare (which would not constitute a reasonable effort to return it by ANY standards)
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone
At that point, it doesn't matter if they KNEW it was Apple's property or a real prototype. Those facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO are evidence that they knowingly purchased stolen property.
I'm just curious why it is that you insist on defending such inane positions (that no one knows anything). Further, why is it that you're making up lies and pretending that I espouse the same silly argument. Does Gizmodo pay well?
Sigh.
if you are going to espouse facts, please try to keep them factual. Credibility matters to some people. I not arguing that your final analysis is incorrect, just that you shouldn't misrepresent the facts to get there. It shows uncertainty on your part that the actual facts will lead to your conclusion...and in a post where you accuse someone else of making up lies. Never change, SJR, never change.
If you want to look at the facts, as actually presented by Giz (let's stick to the three you brought up) then we can correct your statements as follows:
- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy [called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person]
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone
That single correct matters. if as you say, we rely on what they said, then may have believed Hogan had made multiple good faith efforts to contact Apple. This is not the case, as we know now, but as you said to take their statements at the time, then let's do that instead of twisting it..there really doesn't seem to be a need to twist anything here.
And as I have stated separately, the fact they they withheld a large part of the payment clearly (for a rational mind) demonstrates that they were not initially certain that it was not a hoax.
if you are going to espouse facts, please try to keep them factual. Credibility matters to some people. I not arguing that your final analysis is incorrect, just that you shouldn't misrepresent the facts to get there. It shows uncertainty on your part that the actual facts will lead to your conclusion...and in a post where you accuse someone else of making up lies. Never change, SJR, never change.
If you want to look at the facts, as actually presented by Giz (let's stick to the three you brought up) then we can correct your statements as follows:
- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy [called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person]
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone
That single correct matters. if as you say, we rely on what they said, then may have believed Hogan had made multiple good faith efforts to contact Apple. This is not the case, as we know now, but as you said to take their statements at the time, then let's do that instead of twisting it..there really doesn't seem to be a need to twist anything here.
And as I have stated separately, the fact they they withheld a large part of the payment clearly (for a rational mind) demonstrates that they were not initially certain that it was not a hoax.
You're much more patient than I am. In dealing with this I absolutely understand why teachers want to yell at students in a classroom and in my day they could. These are children of entitlement. They have been raised that they can still be rewarded for the wrong answer.
I just don't have the patience to coddle them any longer.
I'm glad someone does.
Criminals on the street have more knowledge of Criminal Procedure than any and all of them put together.
You keep being the rational one and I will be the jaded, impatient, crazy old coot. Deal?
TI think it is relevant as the fact that they were not willing to pay everything up front demonstrates that they had at least some reservations about its authenticity at time they received it.
It's not the least bit relevant.
The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.
Gizmodo paid $5 K for it. That means it's now grand theft rather than theft.
The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.
Gizmodo paid $5 K for it. That means it's now grand theft rather than theft.
Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
Case closed.
All of which might be true. But that isn't what I clearly was replying to. You said
Quote:
Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
I simply pointed out the glaring hole in your logic that the story Giz posted was clear evidence that they knew when they paid Hogan that it was not his. Legally, this might not matter. Logically, it is a gaping hole in your narrative.
See, the final payment on confirmation of authenticity demonstrates their lack of confidence that it was an Apple device and therefore that it was not Hogans. That doesn't mean that they didn't purchase stolen property. They may have. I clearly was not saying otherwise in my response to you. You made an error in logic and I pointed it out. You seem to want to argue your hole doesn't exist because they are guilty. Different argument. Try to keep up.
Do you know they knew, when they paid him, that it wasn't his? They might have believed him, but they weren't willing to bet the full amount on it at that time. You think they were convinced right from the beginning and perhaps they were. The fact that they posted their story after examining it doesn't, in anyway logical/reasonable way imply this. The fact that they reserved payment implies otherwise.
Logic and reason should be part of any attorney's toolkit, no? Even a junior associate a couple years out of school, I would think.
No, sorry, you are still wrong. On both 'facts'. It was Lam that Jobs called and it was after the article with the tear down pictures. Notice the stated date of the article (sorry, I should have bolded that to make it easier to read) of 4/19/2010, after which Jobs called Lam. That is the date the the tear down pictures article was published. So, no, Jobs called Lam and called him after the article with the pics was published.
First you call someone out for not know the facts and present false 'facts' in the process, then you reiterate the same again, even when you have been corrected. Funny.
There was more than one article posted.
The tear down pictures were posted on 4/20, after Jobs' call, just like I said. Do I need to post a link to that specific article, or will you go ahead and find it yourself?
At that point, Gizmodo should have already had the device prepped and on its way to Apple. Guilty as hell, just like I said. I'm not presenting false facts... I may have missed the name of WHICH Gizmodo person was actually called, not that it matters to my point. But I was correct that even after Jobs made that call, Gizmodo went right on ahead posting stuff. (Nowhere did I state that that was the FIRST post they had made regarding the whole affair.)
The tear down pictures were posted on 4/20, after Jobs' call, just like I said. Do I need to post a link to that specific article, or will you go ahead and find it yourself?
At that point, Gizmodo should have already had the device prepped and on its way to Apple. Guilty as hell, just like I said. I'm not presenting false facts... I may have missed the name of WHICH Gizmodo person was actually called, not that it matters to my point. But I was correct that even after Jobs made that call, Gizmodo went right on ahead posting stuff. (Nowhere did I state that that was the FIRST post they had made regarding the whole affair.)
Thompson
April 19, 2010 (I found it myself to save you the time, since as you state, there were multiple articles and you are obviously reading the wrong one)
Notice the pictures of it opened. Notice their description of the internals. Notice their statement that they have disassembled it.
Notice the date of April 19.
You know, beyond the fact that you posted a comment with no correct/honest information, after you were shown you errors, you could have simply said "oh, my bad, I was incorrect". I do that all the time, we are all human and make mistakes. Instead you decide toprove you were correct, with even more incorrect information.
So, no, you were incorrect with just about everything you posted. Jobs did make a call. You did get that right. I think that was the only thing you got right. I am actually sure it was an honest mistake. But it was a mistake. The only reason I pointed it out is that it was funny to make that mistake in a post where you were calling someone out for being wrong.
I honestly can't believe they are all still grasping at straws as they fall into the abyss of logic and fact they ignored themselves.
It get's funnier by the post. Post after post of "No, I'm right...see right here?" followed by post of "No, actually you're wrong, and the FACTS show it here."
They shouted and shouted about who was at fault and who was guilty, but when shown the glaring holes in their accusation produced by the facts they are drowning.
I honestly hope they are comfortable in their careers (if they are actually old enough to HAVE careers) because none of them have futures as attorneys. Actually, I wonder how they've kept jobs at all as they can't be bothered with noticing the DETAILS......
April 19, 2010 (I found it myself to save you the time, since as you state, there were multiple articles and you are obviously reading the wrong one)
Notice the pictures of it opened. Notice their description of the internals. Notice their statement that they have disassembled it.
Notice the date of April 19.
The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010
This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
You know, beyond the fact that you posted a comment with no correct/honest information, after you were shown you errors, you could have simply said "oh, my bad, I was incorrect". I do that all the time, we are all human and make mistakes. Instead you decide toprove you were correct, with even more incorrect information.
So, no, you were incorrect with just about everything you posted. Jobs did make a call. You did get that right. I think that was the only thing you got right. I am actually sure it was an honest mistake. But it was a mistake. The only reason I pointed it out is that it was funny to make that mistake in a post where you were calling someone out for being wrong.
As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.
You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.
The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010
This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.
As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.
You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.
Thompson
Let me save him the trouble of responding:
The pictures on the 19th, at least one of them, show they had already disassembled the phone on the 19th. It's shown in the enlargeable photo of the ribbon cable.
I will admit what I am going to state next was wrong of them, and may be the item that sinks Gizmodo, but the only thing I can surmise is that they had a bunch of photos of a disassembled phone that they hadn't run yet, already planning to run them the next day whether they heard from apple or not, so they said what the hell, go with it, run the story anyway.
It was dumb, but it's what they did. Either way, they had already disassembled the phone BEFORE SJ had called, not after. They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.
In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.
The pictures were run AFTER.
This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try. The proof is the same stories you have referenced, though, AGAIN, you are electing to edit to your own purposes. I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.
The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010
This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.
As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.
Your argument now is becoming a bit dodgy. It is sort of like a guy telling a divorce court judge "I had the affairs after we were legally separated." After proof comes out that he fooled around during the marriage he says, "well, I didn't say I didn't do it before...technically I was right/honest, because I did sleep around afterwards too, which is all I said."
Just to be clear, your original statement didn't have the wiggle room you are digging for now.
Quote:
Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures?
Notice your use of the limiter 'The'.
Not 'some'. Not 'additional'. Not 'subsequent.
Pretty clear what you meant and there was not even an attempt to qualify it as meaning 'just some, later, afterwards'. You obviously meant that the pics were not posted until after the call from Jobs...your attempt to make them sound like even bigger dicks. Some pics were posted afterwards. But the pictures of it disassembled began being posted before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.
Ironic, given your post that I was initially reply to....you remember, the snarky one where you were trying, though not successfully, to punch irrelevant holes in other people's arguments.
Some of these comments (not yours in particular) really confirm my notion that american people can hardly be called "friends". The only thing they do is stay by your side when the sun is shining. I would *NEVER* call the police deliberatelky when I know that one of my friends (e.g.) robbed a bank. I would do all I could without going to prison to protect them.
I would *NEVER*EVER* make the effort and CALL THE COPS TWICE to make REALLY sure they catch them in all what they are doing. She not just called the police/Apple once, because she feared she would be held liable, she called AGAIN to TELL ON THEM when they were removing evidence. That is in NO WAY her obligation to do. They could never pin it on her after she alarmed the cops in teh first place that she was an accomplice to removing serial numbers and whatever.
You know we call this? Blockleiter or Blockwart, thats what certain people did under the Nazis to tell on Jews hiding somewhere, its the exact same analogy YOU ALL are using "its against the law, of course I have to report it". You people make me sick, you know nothing about the word FRIENDSHIP, you would betray your own mothers and children if it would put you even in very low legal risk.
What we have is morals, and you do not.
Comparing this to Nazis and Jews is insulting and totally off the topic.
I don't want 'friends' who commit crimes, who wants to associate with scum?
You are the sort of person who would cover up for a rapist and a pedophile (your own admission, you said you would ONLY report Murder). What sort of person are you?
By using so called friendship to cover up crimes, makes you as guilty as the person committing the crime.
I really hope you suffer some terrible crime and the criminals friends cover it up, how would you feel then.
It seems that some were giving Hogan the benefit of the doubt until now. But now we see he knew who owned it and was trying to dispose of evidence.
Are these same gullible people still giving Chen the benefit of the doubt? I wonder what will come of police reading the emails on his computer they confiscated?
Funny, but the Gizmodo shills here are distorting reality in so many ways it's not funny. I love the claim that Chen didn't do anything wrong. The police affidavit says otherwise:
I think it's also going to be interesting when Powell sues them for libel and slander. Gizmodo published that Powell was drunk and lost the phone. The police report says nothing of the sort. Hogan claims that someone drunk gave him the phone, but that was clearly not Powell. Powell's professional life may have been destroyed by Gizmodo's negligent reporting
Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.
I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.
Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.
Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.
At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.
Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
I'll repeat this AGAIN.
It does not matter if the device was real or fake, it was still stolen.
If is was an Apple deice then it was stolen from Apple.
If it was a fake then it was stolen from the person who lost it in the bar.
Either way it was stolen and Giz bought stone goods, real or fake does not come in to the matter.
And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.
Because he told Giz he found it in a bar (they reported that in their story).
Your argument now is becoming a bit dodgy. It is sort of like a guy telling a divorce court judge "I had the affairs after we were legally separated." After proof comes out that he fooled around during the marriage he says, "well, I didn't say I didn't do it before...technically I was right/honest, because I did sleep around afterwards too, which is all I said."
Just to be clear, your original statement didn't have the wiggle room you are digging for now.
Notice your use of the limiter 'The'.
Not 'some'. Not 'additional'. Not 'subsequent.
Pretty clear what you meant and there was not even an attempt to qualify it as meaning 'just some, later, afterwards'. You obviously meant that the pics were not posted until after the call from Jobs...your attempt to make them sound like even bigger dicks. Some pics were posted afterwards. But the pictures of it disassembled began being posted before.
Ironic, given your post that I was initially reply to....you remember, the snarky one where you were trying, though not successfully, to punch irrelevant holes in other people's arguments.
For the record, NO, I did not mean that no pictures were posted before Jobs' call, and sure my terminology could have been much better there. It's simply that I believe that the tear down pictures were more damaging than the ones prior (even if one of those prior pictures happened to have the casing open). And regardless of whether that is the case, the thrust of my argument is that Gizmodo went ahead with additional damaging articles even after Jobs called them and asked for the phone back. And the conclusion is that Gizmodo was guilty for doing so. (I'm not fingering which Gizmodo member.) So, bully for you. You've managed to successfully take the focus off of my point and onto an analysis of my imperfect words. You've now spent several posts completely nitpicking my words without ever once trying to actually *understand* them. If you had any concern whatsoever about what I was trying to say and whether there was any validity to it, you might have had a chance to glean my meaning. Instead, you just want to win some debate points, or some such. Ironic, since earlier you made a claim that that's what I've been doing all along.
Just to show you can do it, and now that you certainly know my stance, would you mind addressing the actual point instead of making the debate about my terminology? That is, don't you believe that Gizmodo's actions, coupled with the timeline, are fairly damning?
All of which might be true. But that isn't what I clearly was replying to. You said
I simply pointed out the glaring hole in your logic that the story Giz posted was clear evidence that they knew when they paid Hogan that it was not his. Legally, this might not matter. Logically, it is a gaping hole in your narrative.
See, the final payment on confirmation of authenticity demonstrates their lack of confidence that it was an Apple device and therefore that it was not Hogans. That doesn't mean that they didn't purchase stolen property. They may have. I clearly was not saying otherwise in my response to you. You made an error in logic and I pointed it out. You seem to want to argue your hole doesn't exist because they are guilty. Different argument. Try to keep up.
Do you know they knew, when they paid him, that it wasn't his? They might have believed him, but they weren't willing to bet the full amount on it at that time. You think they were convinced right from the beginning and perhaps they were. The fact that they posted their story after examining it doesn't, in anyway logical/reasonable way imply this. The fact that they reserved payment implies otherwise.
Logic and reason should be part of any attorney's toolkit, no? Even a junior associate a couple years out of school, I would think.
It is irrelevant if the device was a real Apple device or not.
Giz knew when he first presented it to them that it was NOT his device.
He told them that, he said he tried to find the owner, hence not his.
Even if it was a fake, it was NOT his fake.
Authentic / fake does not come into the matter at all.
All that matters is if it was owned by Hogan or not when he tried to sell it to Giz.
Giz knew it was not his property, yet they still bought it, which is buying stolen goods (fake or real).
Even if by your guesses they were not told that the item was not his, they are still buying stolen goods, ignorance does not get them off the hook. Any reasonable person would question how Hogan could possibly be the owner of such a device.
Just to show you can do it, and now that you certainly know my stance, would you mind addressing the actual point instead of making the debate about my terminology? That is, don't you believe that Gizmodo's actions, coupled with the timeline, are fairly damning?
Seems so. Best to use the correct timeline, if that is the thrust of your argument (or as you claim now, to use the correct language to reference the correct timeline).
The pictures on the 19th, at least one of them, show they had already disassembled the phone on the 19th. It's shown in the enlargeable photo of the ribbon cable.
I will admit what I am going to state next was wrong of them, and may be the item that sinks Gizmodo, but the only thing I can surmise is that they had a bunch of photos of a disassembled phone that they hadn't run yet, already planning to run them the next day whether they heard from apple or not, so they said what the hell, go with it, run the story anyway.
It was dumb, but it's what they did. Either way, they had already disassembled the phone BEFORE SJ had called, not after. They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.
In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.
The pictures were run AFTER.
This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try. The proof is the same stories you have referenced, though, AGAIN, you are electing to edit to your own purposes. I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.
Why did Giz not just call Apple BEFORE they pulled the device apart to see if it was real?
They did NOT need to pull it apart and publish photos to prove if it was real. There was no NEED to pull it apart at all, other than to MAKE MONEY.
You really are trying to give Giz a way out of their shady and quite dishonest actions.
It is irrelevant if the device was a real Apple device or not.
Giz knew when he first presented it to them that it was NOT his device.
He told them that, he said he tried to find the owner, hence not his.
Even if it was a fake, it was NOT his fake.
Authentic / fake does not come into the matter at all.
All that matters is if it was owned by Hogan or not when he tried to sell it to Giz.
Giz knew it was not his property, yet they still bought it, which is buying stolen goods (fake or real).
Even if by your guesses they were not told that the item was not his, they are still buying stolen goods, ignorance does not get them off the hook. Any reasonable person would question how Hogan could possibly be the owner of such a device.
Beyond the fact that yes, if it was fake then it certainly could have been his fake, i am not trying to 'get them off the hook'. I am simply pointing out the flawed logic in asserting that the fact that they paid Hogan for it proves they knew is was his. That is exactly why the held back part of the payment...because they couldn't have known if it was genuine or some fake that Hogan cobbled together or bought in China. Obviously they felt strongly that it was, but not certain and hence the withheld payment.
Does this get them off the hook? NO! I have said that. I am not arguing that it does. Clear as mud?
Comments
Sorry, but I'm not the one saying no one knows anything - that's your silly position.
My position is that we know what has been reported. Granted, we don't know if it's true, but we can work on the basis of what is public knowledge. For example, when talking about what Gizmodo knew, we can reasonably rely on what Gizmodo SAID at the time.
In this case, you're pretending that Gizmodo didn't know it was stolen. Let's look at the facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO:
- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy made 'a' call to AppleCare (which would not constitute a reasonable effort to return it by ANY standards)
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone
At that point, it doesn't matter if they KNEW it was Apple's property or a real prototype. Those facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO are evidence that they knowingly purchased stolen property.
I'm just curious why it is that you insist on defending such inane positions (that no one knows anything). Further, why is it that you're making up lies and pretending that I espouse the same silly argument. Does Gizmodo pay well?
Sigh.
if you are going to espouse facts, please try to keep them factual. Credibility matters to some people. I not arguing that your final analysis is incorrect, just that you shouldn't misrepresent the facts to get there. It shows uncertainty on your part that the actual facts will lead to your conclusion...and in a post where you accuse someone else of making up lies. Never change, SJR, never change.
If you want to look at the facts, as actually presented by Giz (let's stick to the three you brought up) then we can correct your statements as follows:That single correct matters. if as you say, we rely on what they said, then may have believed Hogan had made multiple good faith efforts to contact Apple. This is not the case, as we know now, but as you said to take their statements at the time, then let's do that instead of twisting it..there really doesn't seem to be a need to twist anything here.
And as I have stated separately, the fact they they withheld a large part of the payment clearly (for a rational mind) demonstrates that they were not initially certain that it was not a hoax.
Sigh.
if you are going to espouse facts, please try to keep them factual. Credibility matters to some people. I not arguing that your final analysis is incorrect, just that you shouldn't misrepresent the facts to get there. It shows uncertainty on your part that the actual facts will lead to your conclusion...and in a post where you accuse someone else of making up lies. Never change, SJR, never change.
If you want to look at the facts, as actually presented by Giz (let's stick to the three you brought up) then we can correct your statements as follows:That single correct matters. if as you say, we rely on what they said, then may have believed Hogan had made multiple good faith efforts to contact Apple. This is not the case, as we know now, but as you said to take their statements at the time, then let's do that instead of twisting it..there really doesn't seem to be a need to twist anything here.
And as I have stated separately, the fact they they withheld a large part of the payment clearly (for a rational mind) demonstrates that they were not initially certain that it was not a hoax.
You're much more patient than I am. In dealing with this I absolutely understand why teachers want to yell at students in a classroom and in my day they could. These are children of entitlement. They have been raised that they can still be rewarded for the wrong answer.
I just don't have the patience to coddle them any longer.
I'm glad someone does.
Criminals on the street have more knowledge of Criminal Procedure than any and all of them put together.
You keep being the rational one and I will be the jaded, impatient, crazy old coot. Deal?
TI think it is relevant as the fact that they were not willing to pay everything up front demonstrates that they had at least some reservations about its authenticity at time they received it.
It's not the least bit relevant.
The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.
Gizmodo paid $5 K for it. That means it's now grand theft rather than theft.
Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
Case closed.
It's not the least bit relevant.
The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.
Gizmodo paid $5 K for it. That means it's now grand theft rather than theft.
Gizmodo purchased stolen property.
Case closed.
All of which might be true. But that isn't what I clearly was replying to. You said
Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
I simply pointed out the glaring hole in your logic that the story Giz posted was clear evidence that they knew when they paid Hogan that it was not his. Legally, this might not matter. Logically, it is a gaping hole in your narrative.
See, the final payment on confirmation of authenticity demonstrates their lack of confidence that it was an Apple device and therefore that it was not Hogans. That doesn't mean that they didn't purchase stolen property. They may have. I clearly was not saying otherwise in my response to you. You made an error in logic and I pointed it out. You seem to want to argue your hole doesn't exist because they are guilty. Different argument. Try to keep up.
Do you know they knew, when they paid him, that it wasn't his? They might have believed him, but they weren't willing to bet the full amount on it at that time. You think they were convinced right from the beginning and perhaps they were. The fact that they posted their story after examining it doesn't, in anyway logical/reasonable way imply this. The fact that they reserved payment implies otherwise.
Logic and reason should be part of any attorney's toolkit, no? Even a junior associate a couple years out of school, I would think.
No, sorry, you are still wrong. On both 'facts'. It was Lam that Jobs called and it was after the article with the tear down pictures. Notice the stated date of the article (sorry, I should have bolded that to make it easier to read) of 4/19/2010, after which Jobs called Lam. That is the date the the tear down pictures article was published. So, no, Jobs called Lam and called him after the article with the pics was published.
First you call someone out for not know the facts and present false 'facts' in the process, then you reiterate the same again, even when you have been corrected. Funny.
There was more than one article posted.
The tear down pictures were posted on 4/20, after Jobs' call, just like I said. Do I need to post a link to that specific article, or will you go ahead and find it yourself?
At that point, Gizmodo should have already had the device prepped and on its way to Apple. Guilty as hell, just like I said. I'm not presenting false facts... I may have missed the name of WHICH Gizmodo person was actually called, not that it matters to my point. But I was correct that even after Jobs made that call, Gizmodo went right on ahead posting stuff. (Nowhere did I state that that was the FIRST post they had made regarding the whole affair.)
Thompson
There was more than one article posted.
The tear down pictures were posted on 4/20, after Jobs' call, just like I said. Do I need to post a link to that specific article, or will you go ahead and find it yourself?
At that point, Gizmodo should have already had the device prepped and on its way to Apple. Guilty as hell, just like I said. I'm not presenting false facts... I may have missed the name of WHICH Gizmodo person was actually called, not that it matters to my point. But I was correct that even after Jobs made that call, Gizmodo went right on ahead posting stuff. (Nowhere did I state that that was the FIRST post they had made regarding the whole affair.)
Thompson
April 19, 2010 (I found it myself to save you the time, since as you state, there were multiple articles and you are obviously reading the wrong one)
Notice the pictures of it opened. Notice their description of the internals. Notice their statement that they have disassembled it.
Notice the date of April 19.
You know, beyond the fact that you posted a comment with no correct/honest information, after you were shown you errors, you could have simply said "oh, my bad, I was incorrect". I do that all the time, we are all human and make mistakes. Instead you decide toprove you were correct, with even more incorrect information.
So, no, you were incorrect with just about everything you posted. Jobs did make a call. You did get that right. I think that was the only thing you got right. I am actually sure it was an honest mistake. But it was a mistake. The only reason I pointed it out is that it was funny to make that mistake in a post where you were calling someone out for being wrong.
It get's funnier by the post. Post after post of "No, I'm right...see right here?" followed by post of "No, actually you're wrong, and the FACTS show it here."
They shouted and shouted about who was at fault and who was guilty, but when shown the glaring holes in their accusation produced by the facts they are drowning.
I honestly hope they are comfortable in their careers (if they are actually old enough to HAVE careers) because none of them have futures as attorneys. Actually, I wonder how they've kept jobs at all as they can't be bothered with noticing the DETAILS......
April 19, 2010 (I found it myself to save you the time, since as you state, there were multiple articles and you are obviously reading the wrong one)
Notice the pictures of it opened. Notice their description of the internals. Notice their statement that they have disassembled it.
Notice the date of April 19.
The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010
This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.
You know, beyond the fact that you posted a comment with no correct/honest information, after you were shown you errors, you could have simply said "oh, my bad, I was incorrect". I do that all the time, we are all human and make mistakes. Instead you decide toprove you were correct, with even more incorrect information.
So, no, you were incorrect with just about everything you posted. Jobs did make a call. You did get that right. I think that was the only thing you got right. I am actually sure it was an honest mistake. But it was a mistake. The only reason I pointed it out is that it was funny to make that mistake in a post where you were calling someone out for being wrong.
As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.
You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.
Thompson
The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010
This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.
As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.
You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.
Thompson
Let me save him the trouble of responding:
The pictures on the 19th, at least one of them, show they had already disassembled the phone on the 19th. It's shown in the enlargeable photo of the ribbon cable.
I will admit what I am going to state next was wrong of them, and may be the item that sinks Gizmodo, but the only thing I can surmise is that they had a bunch of photos of a disassembled phone that they hadn't run yet, already planning to run them the next day whether they heard from apple or not, so they said what the hell, go with it, run the story anyway.
It was dumb, but it's what they did. Either way, they had already disassembled the phone BEFORE SJ had called, not after. They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.
In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.
The pictures were run AFTER.
This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try. The proof is the same stories you have referenced, though, AGAIN, you are electing to edit to your own purposes. I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.
The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010
This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.
As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.
Your argument now is becoming a bit dodgy. It is sort of like a guy telling a divorce court judge "I had the affairs after we were legally separated." After proof comes out that he fooled around during the marriage he says, "well, I didn't say I didn't do it before...technically I was right/honest, because I did sleep around afterwards too, which is all I said."
Just to be clear, your original statement didn't have the wiggle room you are digging for now.
Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures?
Notice your use of the limiter 'The'.
Not 'some'. Not 'additional'. Not 'subsequent.
Pretty clear what you meant and there was not even an attempt to qualify it as meaning 'just some, later, afterwards'. You obviously meant that the pics were not posted until after the call from Jobs...your attempt to make them sound like even bigger dicks. Some pics were posted afterwards. But the pictures of it disassembled began being posted before.
You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.
Ironic, given your post that I was initially reply to....you remember, the snarky one where you were trying, though not successfully, to punch irrelevant holes in other people's arguments.
I'm actually sick of seeing Jason chen's face on google news in the thumbnail. That is one ugly dude.
dude, you got the post in this thread!
Some of these comments (not yours in particular) really confirm my notion that american people can hardly be called "friends". The only thing they do is stay by your side when the sun is shining. I would *NEVER* call the police deliberatelky when I know that one of my friends (e.g.) robbed a bank. I would do all I could without going to prison to protect them.
I would *NEVER*EVER* make the effort and CALL THE COPS TWICE to make REALLY sure they catch them in all what they are doing. She not just called the police/Apple once, because she feared she would be held liable, she called AGAIN to TELL ON THEM when they were removing evidence. That is in NO WAY her obligation to do. They could never pin it on her after she alarmed the cops in teh first place that she was an accomplice to removing serial numbers and whatever.
You know we call this? Blockleiter or Blockwart, thats what certain people did under the Nazis to tell on Jews hiding somewhere, its the exact same analogy YOU ALL are using "its against the law, of course I have to report it". You people make me sick, you know nothing about the word FRIENDSHIP, you would betray your own mothers and children if it would put you even in very low legal risk.
What we have is morals, and you do not.
Comparing this to Nazis and Jews is insulting and totally off the topic.
I don't want 'friends' who commit crimes, who wants to associate with scum?
You are the sort of person who would cover up for a rapist and a pedophile (your own admission, you said you would ONLY report Murder). What sort of person are you?
By using so called friendship to cover up crimes, makes you as guilty as the person committing the crime.
I really hope you suffer some terrible crime and the criminals friends cover it up, how would you feel then.
It seems that some were giving Hogan the benefit of the doubt until now. But now we see he knew who owned it and was trying to dispose of evidence.
Are these same gullible people still giving Chen the benefit of the doubt? I wonder what will come of police reading the emails on his computer they confiscated?
Funny, but the Gizmodo shills here are distorting reality in so many ways it's not funny. I love the claim that Chen didn't do anything wrong. The police affidavit says otherwise:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th..._affidavit.pdf
I think it's also going to be interesting when Powell sues them for libel and slander. Gizmodo published that Powell was drunk and lost the phone. The police report says nothing of the sort. Hogan claims that someone drunk gave him the phone, but that was clearly not Powell. Powell's professional life may have been destroyed by Gizmodo's negligent reporting
Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.
I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.
Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.
Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.
At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.
Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
I'll repeat this AGAIN.
It does not matter if the device was real or fake, it was still stolen.
If is was an Apple deice then it was stolen from Apple.
If it was a fake then it was stolen from the person who lost it in the bar.
Either way it was stolen and Giz bought stone goods, real or fake does not come in to the matter.
And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.
Because he told Giz he found it in a bar (they reported that in their story).
Hence 'he does not own it'.
Your argument now is becoming a bit dodgy. It is sort of like a guy telling a divorce court judge "I had the affairs after we were legally separated." After proof comes out that he fooled around during the marriage he says, "well, I didn't say I didn't do it before...technically I was right/honest, because I did sleep around afterwards too, which is all I said."
Just to be clear, your original statement didn't have the wiggle room you are digging for now.
Notice your use of the limiter 'The'.
Not 'some'. Not 'additional'. Not 'subsequent.
Pretty clear what you meant and there was not even an attempt to qualify it as meaning 'just some, later, afterwards'. You obviously meant that the pics were not posted until after the call from Jobs...your attempt to make them sound like even bigger dicks. Some pics were posted afterwards. But the pictures of it disassembled began being posted before.
Ironic, given your post that I was initially reply to....you remember, the snarky one where you were trying, though not successfully, to punch irrelevant holes in other people's arguments.
For the record, NO, I did not mean that no pictures were posted before Jobs' call, and sure my terminology could have been much better there. It's simply that I believe that the tear down pictures were more damaging than the ones prior (even if one of those prior pictures happened to have the casing open). And regardless of whether that is the case, the thrust of my argument is that Gizmodo went ahead with additional damaging articles even after Jobs called them and asked for the phone back. And the conclusion is that Gizmodo was guilty for doing so. (I'm not fingering which Gizmodo member.) So, bully for you. You've managed to successfully take the focus off of my point and onto an analysis of my imperfect words. You've now spent several posts completely nitpicking my words without ever once trying to actually *understand* them. If you had any concern whatsoever about what I was trying to say and whether there was any validity to it, you might have had a chance to glean my meaning. Instead, you just want to win some debate points, or some such. Ironic, since earlier you made a claim that that's what I've been doing all along.
Just to show you can do it, and now that you certainly know my stance, would you mind addressing the actual point instead of making the debate about my terminology? That is, don't you believe that Gizmodo's actions, coupled with the timeline, are fairly damning?
Thompson
All of which might be true. But that isn't what I clearly was replying to. You said
I simply pointed out the glaring hole in your logic that the story Giz posted was clear evidence that they knew when they paid Hogan that it was not his. Legally, this might not matter. Logically, it is a gaping hole in your narrative.
See, the final payment on confirmation of authenticity demonstrates their lack of confidence that it was an Apple device and therefore that it was not Hogans. That doesn't mean that they didn't purchase stolen property. They may have. I clearly was not saying otherwise in my response to you. You made an error in logic and I pointed it out. You seem to want to argue your hole doesn't exist because they are guilty. Different argument. Try to keep up.
Do you know they knew, when they paid him, that it wasn't his? They might have believed him, but they weren't willing to bet the full amount on it at that time. You think they were convinced right from the beginning and perhaps they were. The fact that they posted their story after examining it doesn't, in anyway logical/reasonable way imply this. The fact that they reserved payment implies otherwise.
Logic and reason should be part of any attorney's toolkit, no? Even a junior associate a couple years out of school, I would think.
It is irrelevant if the device was a real Apple device or not.
Giz knew when he first presented it to them that it was NOT his device.
He told them that, he said he tried to find the owner, hence not his.
Even if it was a fake, it was NOT his fake.
Authentic / fake does not come into the matter at all.
All that matters is if it was owned by Hogan or not when he tried to sell it to Giz.
Giz knew it was not his property, yet they still bought it, which is buying stolen goods (fake or real).
Even if by your guesses they were not told that the item was not his, they are still buying stolen goods, ignorance does not get them off the hook. Any reasonable person would question how Hogan could possibly be the owner of such a device.
Just to show you can do it, and now that you certainly know my stance, would you mind addressing the actual point instead of making the debate about my terminology? That is, don't you believe that Gizmodo's actions, coupled with the timeline, are fairly damning?
Seems so. Best to use the correct timeline, if that is the thrust of your argument (or as you claim now, to use the correct language to reference the correct timeline).
Let me save him the trouble of responding:
The pictures on the 19th, at least one of them, show they had already disassembled the phone on the 19th. It's shown in the enlargeable photo of the ribbon cable.
I will admit what I am going to state next was wrong of them, and may be the item that sinks Gizmodo, but the only thing I can surmise is that they had a bunch of photos of a disassembled phone that they hadn't run yet, already planning to run them the next day whether they heard from apple or not, so they said what the hell, go with it, run the story anyway.
It was dumb, but it's what they did. Either way, they had already disassembled the phone BEFORE SJ had called, not after. They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.
In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.
The pictures were run AFTER.
This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try. The proof is the same stories you have referenced, though, AGAIN, you are electing to edit to your own purposes. I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.
Why did Giz not just call Apple BEFORE they pulled the device apart to see if it was real?
They did NOT need to pull it apart and publish photos to prove if it was real. There was no NEED to pull it apart at all, other than to MAKE MONEY.
You really are trying to give Giz a way out of their shady and quite dishonest actions.
It is irrelevant if the device was a real Apple device or not.
Giz knew when he first presented it to them that it was NOT his device.
He told them that, he said he tried to find the owner, hence not his.
Even if it was a fake, it was NOT his fake.
Authentic / fake does not come into the matter at all.
All that matters is if it was owned by Hogan or not when he tried to sell it to Giz.
Giz knew it was not his property, yet they still bought it, which is buying stolen goods (fake or real).
Even if by your guesses they were not told that the item was not his, they are still buying stolen goods, ignorance does not get them off the hook. Any reasonable person would question how Hogan could possibly be the owner of such a device.
Beyond the fact that yes, if it was fake then it certainly could have been his fake, i am not trying to 'get them off the hook'. I am simply pointing out the flawed logic in asserting that the fact that they paid Hogan for it proves they knew is was his. That is exactly why the held back part of the payment...because they couldn't have known if it was genuine or some fake that Hogan cobbled together or bought in China. Obviously they felt strongly that it was, but not certain and hence the withheld payment.
Does this get them off the hook? NO! I have said that. I am not arguing that it does. Clear as mud?