As for Engadget, who knows why they are suddenly silent on the matter, but it's suspicious behavior at best. Perhaps there is something, maybe an e-mail on Lam or Chen's computers that incriminate Engadget staffers as accomplices? Maybe some sort of publishing arrangement where Engadget (probably more readers than Gizmodo) links back to Gizmodo and gets kicked back a portion of the pageview profits?
Just speculating, but Gizmodo claimed that they paid $5 K for the phone, but the affidavit says that Hogan received $8500. I wonder if he first received $3500 from Engadget for showing them the phone and then $5 K from Gizmodo. At least the numbers would add up that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
That analogy is about as ludicrous as the "Stolen Cars" analogy.
You keep saying that, but so far, you've never been able to find any flaws in the analogy. I guess 'ludicrous' means that you're either not bright enough to understand something or you understand it and don't like the implications".
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Now everyone is tripping over themselves to redact what they said about Chen. I don't even know the guy, but everyone on this site was treating him like he had raped their dog and took a crap in their grandmother's mouth. And for what? Taking pictures of an item that in the end is going to make APPLE ton's of money anyway? Giving Apple free publicity? Finally giving people something rather than being strung along by apple for another few months?
No one's redacting anything except you. You keep saying that Chen did nothing wrong, yet his own words indicate that he's guilty of buying stolen property. That's a felony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Apple should have reported the item stolen the day it was lost (I know there are guidelines that preclude this but they aren't even on record as trying) . Hogan should have actually tried to return it. Nowhere in there should Chen not have reported on it because his BOSS told him to. potential fame or not.
Apple has no legal obligation to report the crime on your timeline or anyone else's timeline. If someone steals your car, it's stolen from the moment they drive away - even if you don't report it to the police for a couple of days because you think your friend might have borrowed it.
Get over it - Hogan and Chen are both criminals by their own admission. Whether you like it or not.
You keep saying that, but so far, you've never been able to find any flaws in the analogy. I guess 'ludicrous' means that you're either not bright enough to understand something or you understand it and don't like the implications".
That analogy has been shown to be flawed on numerous occasion's by others. I will not reproduce their work here, but suffice it to say anyone that wishes to see you shut down can search other threads on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No one's redacting anything except you. You keep saying that Chen did nothing wrong, yet his own words indicate that he's guilty of buying stolen property. That's a felony.
You are so clueless I feel they made a movie about you. Chen didn't purchase a thing, nor is there anything saying he did. Actually, his company may have, i.e.: his superiors (Lamb and company) but nothing states nor has been stated that Chen purchase anything. Those details matter in a criminal trial or even a civil one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple has no legal obligation to report the crime on your timeline or anyone else's timeline. If someone steals your car, it's stolen from the moment they drive away - even if you don't report it to the police for a couple of days because you think your friend might have borrowed it.
I won't argue the particulars of procedure with someone not qualified, nor will I attempt to state I am qualified as I am not a California resident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Get over it - Hogan and Chen are both criminals by their own admission. Whether you like it or not.
Yet to be proven in Chen's case, nor was there any "admission" in Chen's case. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. Except in your own deluded psychosis.
It's not ludicrous. I'm talking about CRIMINAL charges. A crime is a crime, no matter how you try to spin it. If you were talking CIVIL liabilities, then yes... Domino's would be the one to deal with it, as the driver was acting as a representative of Domino's.
I'm not tripping over myself about anything - I never entered into any conversation until you made the ludicrous statement that someone isn't responsible for their crime.
It doesn't matter when Apple reported it. It was a stolen item.
And now YOU are backtracking - saying Chen should have reported on it whether his boss said to or not. Before it was him doing his job... now it's him making the decision regardless of his job.
I never stated Chen should have reported it. I stated he should have reported ON it.
Words are there for a reason. Learn how to read english. Based on that alone I won't even bother with the rest of your post.
And I think you are engaged in classic misdirection.
What? Are you gonna pull a Stalin and try to go back and edit all your posts on this subject for the last month?
Whatever. I'm tired of sparring with you. Welcome to the ignore list. Usually I wouldn't do that, but I lose brain cells reading your posts. It's for my own senior health.
Or ...
After accusing me in public of saying something, you might want to elaborate on exactly what it is that I'm supposed to have said?
I'm not sure what you're even talking about here, in that you seem to be accusing me of saying bad things about Brian Chen et al, and then when I admit that I have said in the past that I think they are (guilty, jerks, immoral, irresponsible, etc.), you say "whatever," and walk away.
You don't seem to have a point to defend. It's not a sparring match unless we are actually arguing about something.
PS - WTF with the Stalin comment???? Stalin was noted for editing his posts? Seriously? Or editing your posts on a forum is to be equated with having a totalitarian stranglehold on an entire country and being personally responsible for the murder of millions of people?
I think you should pull out a dictionary and look up the word "hyperbole."
After accusing me in public of saying something, you might want to elaborate on exactly what it is that I'm supposed to have said?
I'm not sure what you're even talking about here, in that you seem to be accusing me of saying bad things about Brian Chen et al, and then when I admit that I have said in the past that I think they are (guilty, jerks, immoral, irresponsible, etc.), you say "whatever," and walk away.
You don't seem to have a point to defend. It's not a sparring match unless we are actually arguing about something.
PS - WTF with the Stalin comment???? Stalin was noted for editing his posts? Seriously? Or editing your posts on a forum is to be equated with having a totalitarian stranglehold on an entire country and being personally responsible for the murder of millions of people?
I think you should pull out a dictionary and look up the word "hyperbole."
PS - WTF with the Stalin comment???? Stalin was noted for editing his posts?
Dude, really: everyone knows it was Mussolini who used to edit his posts. Stalin was the one who used to troll the Ally forums using the name "Histler." Seriously, your line made me laugh.
and what's the penalty for knowingly destroying evidence of a crime?
Hogan's quotes provided by the roommate would perhaps be considered hearsay and inadmissible in a court of law, but Hogan's actions speak louder anyway.
He's from Germany . Anyway, now we went down to two people equating posters as either supporting Nazis and the Gestapo or are Stalin like in air brushing their posts. Honestly, you guys are a damn joke. Dan2236, if the Gestapo or Stasi were the ones who led the investigation of the lost iPhone, the Gizmodo website would had been down long ago, the the staff and their families would have been arrested, tortured and killed or send to the gulags or concentration camps for their crimes and for Brian Hogan and his room mate, they would be given a kangaroo trial before they are publicly executed. Harleighquinn, Stalin was much much worse. I had read Stalin's history. If your fellow posters are like Stalin, you would not be posting right now. you will be worm food by now.
He's from Germany . Anyway, now we went down to two people equating posters as either supporting Nazis and the Gestapo or are Stalin like in air brushing their posts. Honestly, you guys are a damn joke. Dan2236, if the Gestapo or Stasi were the ones who led the investigation of the lost iPhone, the Gizmodo website would had been down long ago, the the staff and their families would have been arrested, tortured and killed or send to the gulags or concentration camps for their crimes and for Brian Hogan and his room mate, they would be given a kangaroo trial before they are publicly executed. Harleighquinn, Stalin was much much worse. I had read Stalin's history. If your fellow posters are like Stalin, you would not be posting right now. you will be worm food by now.
And THAT is where the CORRECT usage of "hyperbole" applies, unlike how the OP WISHED for it to apply.
I've gotten tired and disgusted with people, especially in this forum and especially those that attempt to give me english lessons and have no idea the correct usage of a definition.
In the case of comparison to Stalin, that was direct hyperbole on my part toward the OP.
Dictionaries only get you so far without any experience or knowledge in HOW to write.
Also, the OP could have at least googled Stalin before replying. Or maybe read some Orwell....
Lam and Chen's careers in high-tech journalism are finished. Right now, Denton is trying to figure out the cheapest way to extract his company from this brouhaha and then unceremoniously dump his two loyal minions as criminals.
As for Engadget, who knows why they are suddenly silent on the matter, but it's suspicious behavior at best. Perhaps there is something, maybe an e-mail on Lam or Chen's computers that incriminate Engadget staffers as accomplices? Maybe some sort of publishing arrangement where Engadget (probably more readers than Gizmodo) links back to Gizmodo and gets kicked back a portion of the pageview profits?
I think it's highly probable that they are going to respond on Monday for the most hits, instead of burying it on a weekend.
Yes, you are quite welcome to go through all my posts and see where I said Chen publicly admitted to receiving stolen property a crime under Californian law, in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious? Do you want me to actually go through a month of posts to find every single person, including yourself, that has stated vehemently that Jason Chen was a thief and should be prosecuted because he is a thief?
From the moment this story broke, all my comments in regards to this have pointed out that Chen publicly admitted to receiving stolen property a crime under Californian law in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
Show me where I have changed ANYTHING at all since my first comment on this matter.
It seems you are just trolling with your generalised statements regarding "everyone".
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Now everyone is tripping over themselves to redact what they said about Chen.
Yes, you are quite welcome to go through all my posts and see where I said Chen publicly admitted to purchasing stolen property a crime under Californian law, in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
From the moment this story broke, all my comments in regards to this have pointed out that Chen publicly admitted to purchasing stolen property a crime under Californian law in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
Show me where I have changed ANYTHING at all since my first comment on this matter.
It seems you are just trolling with your generalised statements regarding "everyone".
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Delusion.
Stating they paid $5k for the phone and "admitting" they paid for stolen property are two entirely different things and therefore conjecture.
Also, the superlative "we" has many different meanings. There was nothing in Chen's video that stated "I". It was always "we". "We" means others beside Chen. "We" also can mean an organization, such as the company he works for.
And let's not even touch upon the fact nothing has been declared stolen property until charges are filed.....
I have the feeling I am having a battle or wits with an unarmed individual, mainly because I am.
A precursory run through of the reveal video already disproves everything you have stated in this post, much less makes you look like the rear of a certain equine creature.
I am very particular on details. So will a court and jury. You, apparently, are not.
So a video showing Chen in possession of an object deemed to be stolen property does not show Chen in possession of it.
I see.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Delusion.
Stating they paid $5k for the phone and "admitting" they paid for stolen property are two entirely different things and therefore conjecture.
Also, the superlative "we" has many different meanings. There was nothing in Chen's video that stated "I". It was always "we". "We" means others beside Chen. "We" also can mean an organization, such as the company he works for.
And let's not even touch upon the fact nothing has been declared stolen property until charges are filed.....
I have the feeling I am having a battle or wits with an unarmed individual, mainly because I am.
A precursory run through of the reveal video already disproves everything you have stated in this post, much less makes you look like the rear of a certain equine creature.
I am very particular on details. So will a court and jury. You, apparently, are not.
So a video showing Chen in possession of an object deemed to be stolen property does not show Chen in possession of it.
I see.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
And in your case ignorance is your only defense.
The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)
That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.
But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.
Chen was videotaped in possession of property deemed to be stolen, he admitted he had it in his possession, nowhere did I say he stole it.
I suggest you look into the difference between stealing and receiving stolen property.
Your circular arguments seem very trollish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
And in your case ignorance is your only defense.
The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)
That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.
But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.
Comments
As for Engadget, who knows why they are suddenly silent on the matter, but it's suspicious behavior at best. Perhaps there is something, maybe an e-mail on Lam or Chen's computers that incriminate Engadget staffers as accomplices? Maybe some sort of publishing arrangement where Engadget (probably more readers than Gizmodo) links back to Gizmodo and gets kicked back a portion of the pageview profits?
Just speculating, but Gizmodo claimed that they paid $5 K for the phone, but the affidavit says that Hogan received $8500. I wonder if he first received $3500 from Engadget for showing them the phone and then $5 K from Gizmodo. At least the numbers would add up that way.
That analogy is about as ludicrous as the "Stolen Cars" analogy.
You keep saying that, but so far, you've never been able to find any flaws in the analogy. I guess 'ludicrous' means that you're either not bright enough to understand something or you understand it and don't like the implications".
Now everyone is tripping over themselves to redact what they said about Chen. I don't even know the guy, but everyone on this site was treating him like he had raped their dog and took a crap in their grandmother's mouth. And for what? Taking pictures of an item that in the end is going to make APPLE ton's of money anyway? Giving Apple free publicity? Finally giving people something rather than being strung along by apple for another few months?
No one's redacting anything except you. You keep saying that Chen did nothing wrong, yet his own words indicate that he's guilty of buying stolen property. That's a felony.
Apple should have reported the item stolen the day it was lost (I know there are guidelines that preclude this but they aren't even on record as trying) . Hogan should have actually tried to return it. Nowhere in there should Chen not have reported on it because his BOSS told him to. potential fame or not.
Apple has no legal obligation to report the crime on your timeline or anyone else's timeline. If someone steals your car, it's stolen from the moment they drive away - even if you don't report it to the police for a couple of days because you think your friend might have borrowed it.
Get over it - Hogan and Chen are both criminals by their own admission. Whether you like it or not.
You keep saying that, but so far, you've never been able to find any flaws in the analogy. I guess 'ludicrous' means that you're either not bright enough to understand something or you understand it and don't like the implications".
That analogy has been shown to be flawed on numerous occasion's by others. I will not reproduce their work here, but suffice it to say anyone that wishes to see you shut down can search other threads on the subject.
No one's redacting anything except you. You keep saying that Chen did nothing wrong, yet his own words indicate that he's guilty of buying stolen property. That's a felony.
You are so clueless I feel they made a movie about you. Chen didn't purchase a thing, nor is there anything saying he did. Actually, his company may have, i.e.: his superiors (Lamb and company) but nothing states nor has been stated that Chen purchase anything. Those details matter in a criminal trial or even a civil one.
Apple has no legal obligation to report the crime on your timeline or anyone else's timeline. If someone steals your car, it's stolen from the moment they drive away - even if you don't report it to the police for a couple of days because you think your friend might have borrowed it.
I won't argue the particulars of procedure with someone not qualified, nor will I attempt to state I am qualified as I am not a California resident.
Get over it - Hogan and Chen are both criminals by their own admission. Whether you like it or not.
Yet to be proven in Chen's case, nor was there any "admission" in Chen's case. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. Except in your own deluded psychosis.
It's not ludicrous. I'm talking about CRIMINAL charges. A crime is a crime, no matter how you try to spin it. If you were talking CIVIL liabilities, then yes... Domino's would be the one to deal with it, as the driver was acting as a representative of Domino's.
I'm not tripping over myself about anything - I never entered into any conversation until you made the ludicrous statement that someone isn't responsible for their crime.
It doesn't matter when Apple reported it. It was a stolen item.
And now YOU are backtracking - saying Chen should have reported on it whether his boss said to or not. Before it was him doing his job... now it's him making the decision regardless of his job.
I never stated Chen should have reported it. I stated he should have reported ON it.
Words are there for a reason. Learn how to read english. Based on that alone I won't even bother with the rest of your post.
And I think you are engaged in classic misdirection.
What? Are you gonna pull a Stalin and try to go back and edit all your posts on this subject for the last month?
Whatever. I'm tired of sparring with you. Welcome to the ignore list. Usually I wouldn't do that, but I lose brain cells reading your posts. It's for my own senior health.
Or ...
After accusing me in public of saying something, you might want to elaborate on exactly what it is that I'm supposed to have said?
I'm not sure what you're even talking about here, in that you seem to be accusing me of saying bad things about Brian Chen et al, and then when I admit that I have said in the past that I think they are (guilty, jerks, immoral, irresponsible, etc.), you say "whatever," and walk away.
You don't seem to have a point to defend. It's not a sparring match unless we are actually arguing about something.
PS - WTF with the Stalin comment???? Stalin was noted for editing his posts? Seriously? Or editing your posts on a forum is to be equated with having a totalitarian stranglehold on an entire country and being personally responsible for the murder of millions of people?
I think you should pull out a dictionary and look up the word "hyperbole."
Or ...
After accusing me in public of saying something, you might want to elaborate on exactly what it is that I'm supposed to have said?
I'm not sure what you're even talking about here, in that you seem to be accusing me of saying bad things about Brian Chen et al, and then when I admit that I have said in the past that I think they are (guilty, jerks, immoral, irresponsible, etc.), you say "whatever," and walk away.
You don't seem to have a point to defend. It's not a sparring match unless we are actually arguing about something.
PS - WTF with the Stalin comment???? Stalin was noted for editing his posts? Seriously? Or editing your posts on a forum is to be equated with having a totalitarian stranglehold on an entire country and being personally responsible for the murder of millions of people?
I think you should pull out a dictionary and look up the word "hyperbole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censors...e_Soviet_Union
Do you really want to look anymore uninformed than you already are?
You may want to consult that dictionary yourself.......
PS - WTF with the Stalin comment???? Stalin was noted for editing his posts?
Dude, really: everyone knows it was Mussolini who used to edit his posts. Stalin was the one who used to troll the Ally forums using the name "Histler." Seriously, your line made me laugh.
The term is "heed" and, again, Chen didn't do the negotiations. Lamb did .
It's not Lamb, it's Lam. Glass houses and all that.
I never stated Chen should have reported it. I stated he should have reported ON it.
Words are there for a reason. Learn how to read english. Based on that alone I won't even bother with the rest of your post.
I'd rather you didn't bother. You're clueless, obviously. I was talking about Chen reporting ON it.
Perhaps YOU are the one that needs remedial English. (It's capitalized, by the way.)
It's not Lamb, it's Lam. Glass houses and all that.
Automatic spell check.
iPhone.
I'd rather you didn't bother. You're clueless, obviously. I was talking about Chen reporting ON it.
Perhaps YOU are the one that needs remedial English. (It's capitalized, by the way.)
Learn to read. Not HOW to read, just read, period.
Then maybe you will actually respond to what's written.
1) Comparisons to Hitler or Nazis
2) Correcting someone's grammar or spelling
3) References to someone's age or maturity
Just sayin' . . .
and what's the penalty for knowingly destroying evidence of a crime?
Hogan's quotes provided by the roommate would perhaps be considered hearsay and inadmissible in a court of law, but Hogan's actions speak louder anyway.
They definitely would not be considered hearsay.
Remind me not to visit wherever you come from....
He's from Germany . Anyway, now we went down to two people equating posters as either supporting Nazis and the Gestapo or are Stalin like in air brushing their posts. Honestly, you guys are a damn joke. Dan2236, if the Gestapo or Stasi were the ones who led the investigation of the lost iPhone, the Gizmodo website would had been down long ago, the the staff and their families would have been arrested, tortured and killed or send to the gulags or concentration camps for their crimes and for Brian Hogan and his room mate, they would be given a kangaroo trial before they are publicly executed. Harleighquinn, Stalin was much much worse. I had read Stalin's history. If your fellow posters are like Stalin, you would not be posting right now. you will be worm food by now.
He's from Germany . Anyway, now we went down to two people equating posters as either supporting Nazis and the Gestapo or are Stalin like in air brushing their posts. Honestly, you guys are a damn joke. Dan2236, if the Gestapo or Stasi were the ones who led the investigation of the lost iPhone, the Gizmodo website would had been down long ago, the the staff and their families would have been arrested, tortured and killed or send to the gulags or concentration camps for their crimes and for Brian Hogan and his room mate, they would be given a kangaroo trial before they are publicly executed. Harleighquinn, Stalin was much much worse. I had read Stalin's history. If your fellow posters are like Stalin, you would not be posting right now. you will be worm food by now.
And THAT is where the CORRECT usage of "hyperbole" applies, unlike how the OP WISHED for it to apply.
I've gotten tired and disgusted with people, especially in this forum and especially those that attempt to give me english lessons and have no idea the correct usage of a definition.
In the case of comparison to Stalin, that was direct hyperbole on my part toward the OP.
Dictionaries only get you so far without any experience or knowledge in HOW to write.
Also, the OP could have at least googled Stalin before replying. Or maybe read some Orwell....
Lam and Chen's careers in high-tech journalism are finished. Right now, Denton is trying to figure out the cheapest way to extract his company from this brouhaha and then unceremoniously dump his two loyal minions as criminals.
As for Engadget, who knows why they are suddenly silent on the matter, but it's suspicious behavior at best. Perhaps there is something, maybe an e-mail on Lam or Chen's computers that incriminate Engadget staffers as accomplices? Maybe some sort of publishing arrangement where Engadget (probably more readers than Gizmodo) links back to Gizmodo and gets kicked back a portion of the pageview profits?
I think it's highly probable that they are going to respond on Monday for the most hits, instead of burying it on a weekend.
Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious? Do you want me to actually go through a month of posts to find every single person, including yourself, that has stated vehemently that Jason Chen was a thief and should be prosecuted because he is a thief?
From the moment this story broke, all my comments in regards to this have pointed out that Chen publicly admitted to receiving stolen property a crime under Californian law in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
Show me where I have changed ANYTHING at all since my first comment on this matter.
It seems you are just trolling with your generalised statements regarding "everyone".
Now everyone is tripping over themselves to redact what they said about Chen.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Yes, you are quite welcome to go through all my posts and see where I said Chen publicly admitted to purchasing stolen property a crime under Californian law, in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
From the moment this story broke, all my comments in regards to this have pointed out that Chen publicly admitted to purchasing stolen property a crime under Californian law in itself a criminal act deserving of investigation.
Show me where I have changed ANYTHING at all since my first comment on this matter.
It seems you are just trolling with your generalised statements regarding "everyone".
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Delusion.
Stating they paid $5k for the phone and "admitting" they paid for stolen property are two entirely different things and therefore conjecture.
Also, the superlative "we" has many different meanings. There was nothing in Chen's video that stated "I". It was always "we". "We" means others beside Chen. "We" also can mean an organization, such as the company he works for.
And let's not even touch upon the fact nothing has been declared stolen property until charges are filed.....
I have the feeling I am having a battle or wits with an unarmed individual, mainly because I am.
A precursory run through of the reveal video already disproves everything you have stated in this post, much less makes you look like the rear of a certain equine creature.
I am very particular on details. So will a court and jury. You, apparently, are not.
I see.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Delusion.
Stating they paid $5k for the phone and "admitting" they paid for stolen property are two entirely different things and therefore conjecture.
Also, the superlative "we" has many different meanings. There was nothing in Chen's video that stated "I". It was always "we". "We" means others beside Chen. "We" also can mean an organization, such as the company he works for.
And let's not even touch upon the fact nothing has been declared stolen property until charges are filed.....
I have the feeling I am having a battle or wits with an unarmed individual, mainly because I am.
A precursory run through of the reveal video already disproves everything you have stated in this post, much less makes you look like the rear of a certain equine creature.
I am very particular on details. So will a court and jury. You, apparently, are not.
So a video showing Chen in possession of an object deemed to be stolen property does not show Chen in possession of it.
I see.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
And in your case ignorance is your only defense.
The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)
That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.
But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.
Therefore you are delusional.
Chen was videotaped in possession of property deemed to be stolen, he admitted he had it in his possession, nowhere did I say he stole it.
I suggest you look into the difference between stealing and receiving stolen property.
Your circular arguments seem very trollish.
And in your case ignorance is your only defense.
The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)
That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.
But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.
Therefore you are delusional.