It is quite obvious that harleighquinn is employed by Gizmodo to defend Chen. It is too bad that harleighquinn fails. Maybe Gizmodo should ask for a refund?
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 . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his.
Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
So basically I argued "no one knows anything. Stop demonizing Chen." and that's nonsense? Really? Really? The affidavit refutes you, but whatever......
And that's exactly the point you keep ignoring. "no one knows anything" is incorrect. Gizmodo made a bunch of public statements. One can reasonably discuss what they stated publicly. Their public statement was that someone found a phone in a bar that wasn't his, he made only a very feeble attempt to contact Apple, and Gizmodo paid him $5 K for the phone. That is plenty of evidence that Gizmodo knew it was dealing in stolen property.
Your attempts to ignore everything that hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law suggests that you are not interested in any kind of rational discussion but are rather defending Chen at all costs, no matter how irrational that defense might be. Sorry, that's not a very intelligent position to be taking.
Tulkas, I'm sorry. Somehow responding to JRAGOSTA made it look I was responding to you. Probably because he didn't quote correctly.
EDIT: Apparently he's corrected his mistake, though it still shows it was made in my response.
[QUOTE=jragosta;1633564]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his.]/QUOTE]
Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.
And that's exactly the point you keep ignoring. "no one knows anything" is incorrect. Gizmodo made a bunch of public statements. One can reasonably discuss what they stated publicly. Their public statement was that someone found a phone in a bar that wasn't his, he made only a very feeble attempt to contact Apple, and Gizmodo paid him $5 K for the phone. That is plenty of evidence that Gizmodo knew it was dealing in stolen property.
Your attempts to ignore everything that hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law suggests that you are not interested in any kind of rational discussion but are rather defending Chen at all costs, no matter how irrational that defense might be. Sorry, that's not a very intelligent position to be taking.
It's exactly the point YOU keep ignoring, saying no one knows anything and then coming in as though you know EVERYTHING, as you JUST DID RIGHT THERE.
It is quite obvious that harleighquinn is employed by Gizmodo to defend Chen. It is too bad that harleighquinn fails. Maybe Gizmodo should ask for a refund?
Maybe you should read the posts that say I live in VA, work in DC and am an accountant for a government contracting IT firm, but yeah, sure, I work for Gizmodo.
I just have common sense, something apparently lacking in this forum.
It's exactly the point YOU keep ignoring, saying no one knows anything and then coming in as though you know EVERYTHING, as you JUST DID RIGHT THERE.
Hypocrite.
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?
Maybe you should read the posts that say I live in VA, work in DC and am an accountant for a government contracting IT firm, but yeah, sure, I work for Gizmodo.
I just have common sense, something apparently lacking in this forum.
So common sense says that it's impossible to receive payment from someone on the other side of the country for shilling?
Not that I believe you're actually shilling for Gizmodo. I'm sure they could hire someone far more competent than you. But to argue that its impossible that you're shilling for them simply because you live in VA is the height of absurdity - just like 99% of your posts.
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?
You're still acting as though you know something, as though you know charges will be filed against Chen or GIZMODO. You are quoting what is known, but not verified (CONJECTURE) and then telling me I know nothing and you know everything while also saying no one knows anything.
I can honestly see the warped reality where you feel you are still speaking truthfully. There is a psychological term for that. Look it up.
So common sense says that it's impossible to receive payment from someone on the other side of the country for shilling?
Not that I believe you're actually shilling for Gizmodo. I'm sure they could hire someone far more competent than you. But to argue that its impossible that you're shilling for them simply because you live in VA is the height of absurdity - just like 99% of your posts.
And now you are just attempting to be insulting, which might have worked, if your post previous to this one didn't show your intention and essentially the fact you are doing nothing except being a parrot.
I was re-reading the whole comments and arguments again, and an idea struck me on how to end this whole mess of the next iPhone prototype and make everybody satisfied, read on the quotes below first please..
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
(Brian Lam's email to Apple PR) P.S. I hope you take it easy on the kid who lost it. I don't think he loves anything more than Apple except, well, beer. Maybe some spankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Maybe that's why it took her so long to finally report it. She was busy....ummmm...."punishing" Hogan and Warner.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Prison time is extremely unlikely. Extremely. This is white collar corporate stuff, and petty at that.
Using legal hook to untangle this mess will take too long, and that's why the solution is very easy: spank the naughty guys..
Here's an idea: Hogan spanked by Gizmodo (by Jason Chen, Brian Lam, Ryan Tate and Jesus Diaz) for dragging them to lots of trouble, then Gizmodo spanked by Steve Jobs for publishing the next iPhone, and finally Steve Jobs (Apple) spanked by us for using the 'big brother' prowess on Gizmodo.. LOL
And oh, Gray Powell also got a chance to spank Brian Hogan for all the trouble and misery he received.. *devilish grin*
P.S.: with all of the emotional comments lately, I hope it's alright to add a bit of humor around here..
He likely did miss that part...you know since it didn't happen. From the docs:
"Sewell told be that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam."
So, you were wrong that it was before and you were wrong about whom Jobs called.
Nice work. Your entire comment was premised on one statement with two facts. Unfortunately, both facts were wrong.
If the facts don't work for you, just change them?
Not that it really changes the overall case against the various parties, but it certainly makes your comment untruthful or incorrect.
Actually, I only got ONE fact wrong: you are right that Jobs called Lam not Chen. Easy enough mistake, but also doesn't change my original point.
With regard to the other issue: I said that Jobs called before Gizmodo ran the pictures (meaning all of those breakdown pictures which pretty much sealed the deal as this being more than just a rumor). You are right that Gizmodo ran a story prior to that, but they ran the pictures AFTER Jobs demanded the return. Guilty as hell, as I said, regardless of whether Lam or Chen answered the phone. (As if Lam didn't immediately call Chen to tell him that "the Steve" called and wanted his phone back.)
Actually, I only got ONE fact wrong: you are right that Jobs called Lam not Chen. Easy enough mistake, but also doesn't change my original point.
With regard to the other issue: I said that Jobs called before Gizmodo ran the pictures (meaning all of those breakdown pictures which pretty much sealed the deal as this being more than just a rumor). You are right that Gizmodo ran a story prior to that, but they ran the pictures AFTER Jobs demanded the return. Guilty as hell, as I said, regardless of whether Lam or Chen answered the phone. (As if Lam didn't immediately call Chen to tell him that "the Steve" called and wanted his phone back.)
Thompson
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.
Also, Tate DID NOT make a fool of himself. Read it again with an impartial view and any fool can see it was Steve who made a fool of HIMSELF.
You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. Actually, that's not true: One can, but in line with HOW one does business, not what the consumers can consume. If he want's that type of control he can move to China or the Middle East. They would be happy to take him. (actually, pornography in China in 200 made nearly double the USA numbers, so they may not want him either.)
Porn, as an industry, actually nearly competes with APPLE. Stating he plans to eliminate it is on par with pissing off the Taliban (hyperbole) and they have a large amount of influence that can hurt Apple, if they choose to.
Flash? I really don't care. It's crap. It can go. But forcing his morality on us? He sounds like all the hippies that had their fun and now want to ensure no one else does. It's like a parent telling you to not do everything they know they did.
Hypocrisy. Something I swore I would not do with my children. "Do as I say, not as I do" or in this case, did.
Don't use an icon that stood for actual freedom as your poster child to take that freedom away. That's pretty much Orwell's "1984" in a nutshell. To make something mean the opposite of what it originally meant and convince everyone the new meaning (New Speak) Is the correct one.
Also, Steve recants his statement within the exchange, from "it's about freedom..." to "It's not about freedom, it's about Apple trying to do what's right for its users."
Complete about face, in Steve's own words no less.
He went from Braveheart to British rule in a matter of paragraphs.
I now realize why all of you post the way you do: You sound just like Steve Jobs. ("You are so misinformed. No one kicked in any doors." - all news agencies reported the door was broken into and the garage open and I believe, though I may be wrong, local news posted images, and I'm willing to bet they sure as hell didn't pick the locks...but no, that didn't happen because I don't believe it did....) As I sit here typing this on my iMac, I am very acutely aware of and also very relieved that I have not sunk to such hero worship that I am attempting to mimic him.
Those are REAL psychological issues there......
Harley, dude ... give it up.
You are making yourself look like a fool here.
Not much of anything you are saying above is even close to true. I don't enjoy making you look stupid and I'm going to stop now, but please ... try looking at least a few things up before you post.
- You say that "You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. " but then defend Tate for doing exactly that.
- You say that Steve said he wants to "eliminate" porn when he said no such thing.
- You imply that the porn industry is going to get together and destroy Apple? WTF?
You're raving dude. Take a pill or something.
Then you finish off with a complete lie about seeing images of Apple "breaking into" this guys house when anyone can easily check on that and be certain that it never happened.
You're just making crap up willy-nilly here and anyone who engages you in argument is a bigger fool than you, so I'm just going to stop.
Not much of anything you are saying above is even close to true. I don't enjoy making you look stupid and I'm going to stop now, but please ... try looking at least a few things up before you post.
- You say that "You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. " but then defend Tate for doing exactly that.
- You say that Steve said he wants to "eliminate" porn when he said no such thing.
- You imply that the porn industry is going to get together and destroy Apple? WTF?
You're raving dude. Take a pill or something.
Then you finish off with a complete lie about seeing images of Apple "breaking into" this guys house when anyone can easily check on that and be certain that it never happened.
You're just making crap up willy-nilly here and anyone who engages you in argument is a bigger fool than you, so I'm just going to stop.
You made that entire comment without re-reading the email exchange. I could do you a favor and post the ENTIRE exchange here if you'd like. You would just look even more idiotic.
Honestly, with your insistence upon editing facts via ignoring the ones that don't work for you, I'm not even going to bother to do the work. Anyone that wishes to see how little research you do is more than willing to go to the link. Anyone that chooses to maintain the fantasy world both you and they live in can just ignore it and live in your self maintained and deluded psychosis.
P.S.: And if you're going to truncate my name, at least spell it correctly. Though I don't think a respectful bone exists in your entire person, so I know I'm asking allot.
here are some predictions - we'll see what really happens.
first the DA works out a plea with the thief. he will insist on at least one felony count, grand theft or whatever. the thief of course will have to roll on Giz to avoid jail time.
then with the iPhone's status as stolen established as a matter of law, the DA will charge whoever at Giz actually handed the thief the cash with receiving stolen property. Chen or whoever.
then they either they cop a plea to some minimal charge or dare a trial on major counts in some kind of martyr cause.
given the real chance of being convicted and serving hard time, and that the Giz guys are such obvious weenies (that email was pathetic), they will plead.
apple could then sue Giz, but I can't believe they will. no advantage to them to drag it all out.
in any real business with any ethics, all the Giz people responsible would resign at some point, or be fired. of course, Giz may not meet those criteria. it was all just a teenage prank, right?
here are some predictions - we'll see what really happens.
first the DA works out a plea with the thief. he will insist on at least one felony count, grand theft or whatever. the thief of course will have to roll on Giz to avoid jail time.
then with the iPhone's status as stolen established as a matter of law, the DA will charge whoever at Giz actually handed the thief the cash with receiving stolen property. Chen or whoever.
then they either they cop a plea to some minimal charge or dare a trial on major counts in some kind of martyr cause.
given the real chance of being convicted and serving hard time, and that the Giz guys are such obvious weenies (that email was pathetic), they will plead.
apple could then sue Giz, but I can't believe they will. no advantage to them to drag it all out.
in any real business with any ethics, all the Giz people responsible would resign at some point, or be fired. of course, Giz may not meet those criteria. it was all just a teenage prank, right?
Maybe, maybe....no one really knows until it happens, until former charges are filed, and then how much the DA feels he could actually get convicted. I doubt anyone at Gizmodo will actually see a charge brought against them, but I have been wrong before and am willing to admit it.
Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.
That's great. As you have said, their story was all we had and we could take it for what it was worth. We also have their statements of when they first saw it, that they were not sure it was authentic.
But since then, we now also have the police report, which mentions that Hogan was paid part of the money up front and part of the money was held until Apple confirmed it was real by announcing it. You can argue that that is irrelevant, but it is strange that you would argue that it isn't incorrect. Perhaps if you read the order you would know this. Perhaps not.
I 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.
You are correct that the story they published at the time says that they believed at that point that it was genuine and not Hogans property. Unfortunately for you, it is irrational to then take this as proof of what they knew to be true weeks earlier. Their story shows that at the time they published the article they knew it was not Hogans. It doesn't show that they believed this when they first saw the device and paid to examine it. That's just bad logic. The fact that they withheld payment shows that they had doubts about Hogans tale. By they time they published their story, they had been convinced.
Comments
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 . . . .
They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his.
Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.
So basically I argued "no one knows anything. Stop demonizing Chen." and that's nonsense? Really? Really? The affidavit refutes you, but whatever......
And that's exactly the point you keep ignoring. "no one knows anything" is incorrect. Gizmodo made a bunch of public statements. One can reasonably discuss what they stated publicly. Their public statement was that someone found a phone in a bar that wasn't his, he made only a very feeble attempt to contact Apple, and Gizmodo paid him $5 K for the phone. That is plenty of evidence that Gizmodo knew it was dealing in stolen property.
Your attempts to ignore everything that hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law suggests that you are not interested in any kind of rational discussion but are rather defending Chen at all costs, no matter how irrational that defense might be. Sorry, that's not a very intelligent position to be taking.
EDIT: Apparently he's corrected his mistake, though it still shows it was made in my response.
[QUOTE=jragosta;1633564]
They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his.]/QUOTE]
Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.
And that's exactly the point you keep ignoring. "no one knows anything" is incorrect. Gizmodo made a bunch of public statements. One can reasonably discuss what they stated publicly. Their public statement was that someone found a phone in a bar that wasn't his, he made only a very feeble attempt to contact Apple, and Gizmodo paid him $5 K for the phone. That is plenty of evidence that Gizmodo knew it was dealing in stolen property.
Your attempts to ignore everything that hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law suggests that you are not interested in any kind of rational discussion but are rather defending Chen at all costs, no matter how irrational that defense might be. Sorry, that's not a very intelligent position to be taking.
It's exactly the point YOU keep ignoring, saying no one knows anything and then coming in as though you know EVERYTHING, as you JUST DID RIGHT THERE.
Hypocrite.
It is quite obvious that harleighquinn is employed by Gizmodo to defend Chen. It is too bad that harleighquinn fails. Maybe Gizmodo should ask for a refund?
Maybe you should read the posts that say I live in VA, work in DC and am an accountant for a government contracting IT firm, but yeah, sure, I work for Gizmodo.
I just have common sense, something apparently lacking in this forum.
The only Jail Chen will go to is the one in your prison rape fantasies.
Give it a rest.
Wow - looks like I really hit a nerve there. I was just stating fact, but you are really taking this whole issue quite personally.
Wow - looks like I really hit a nerve there. I was just stating fact, but you are really taking this whole issue quite personally.
Not really. I have dead nerve endings. I'm just tired of people making themselves look like idiots in print.
It's exactly the point YOU keep ignoring, saying no one knows anything and then coming in as though you know EVERYTHING, as you JUST DID RIGHT THERE.
Hypocrite.
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?
Maybe you should read the posts that say I live in VA, work in DC and am an accountant for a government contracting IT firm, but yeah, sure, I work for Gizmodo.
I just have common sense, something apparently lacking in this forum.
So common sense says that it's impossible to receive payment from someone on the other side of the country for shilling?
Not that I believe you're actually shilling for Gizmodo. I'm sure they could hire someone far more competent than you. But to argue that its impossible that you're shilling for them simply because you live in VA is the height of absurdity - just like 99% of your posts.
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?
You're still acting as though you know something, as though you know charges will be filed against Chen or GIZMODO. You are quoting what is known, but not verified (CONJECTURE) and then telling me I know nothing and you know everything while also saying no one knows anything.
I can honestly see the warped reality where you feel you are still speaking truthfully. There is a psychological term for that. Look it up.
So common sense says that it's impossible to receive payment from someone on the other side of the country for shilling?
Not that I believe you're actually shilling for Gizmodo. I'm sure they could hire someone far more competent than you. But to argue that its impossible that you're shilling for them simply because you live in VA is the height of absurdity - just like 99% of your posts.
And now you are just attempting to be insulting, which might have worked, if your post previous to this one didn't show your intention and essentially the fact you are doing nothing except being a parrot.
(Brian Lam's email to Apple PR) P.S. I hope you take it easy on the kid who lost it. I don't think he loves anything more than Apple except, well, beer. Maybe some spankings.
Maybe that's why it took her so long to finally report it. She was busy....ummmm...."punishing" Hogan and Warner.....
Prison time is extremely unlikely. Extremely. This is white collar corporate stuff, and petty at that.
Using legal hook to untangle this mess will take too long, and that's why the solution is very easy: spank the naughty guys..
Here's an idea: Hogan spanked by Gizmodo (by Jason Chen, Brian Lam, Ryan Tate and Jesus Diaz) for dragging them to lots of trouble, then Gizmodo spanked by Steve Jobs for publishing the next iPhone, and finally Steve Jobs (Apple) spanked by us for using the 'big brother' prowess on Gizmodo.. LOL
And oh, Gray Powell also got a chance to spank Brian Hogan for all the trouble and misery he received.. *devilish grin*
P.S.: with all of the emotional comments lately, I hope it's alright to add a bit of humor around here..
Peace, and out.
He likely did miss that part...you know since it didn't happen. From the docs:
"Sewell told be that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam."
So, you were wrong that it was before and you were wrong about whom Jobs called.
Nice work. Your entire comment was premised on one statement with two facts. Unfortunately, both facts were wrong.
If the facts don't work for you, just change them?
Not that it really changes the overall case against the various parties, but it certainly makes your comment untruthful or incorrect.
Actually, I only got ONE fact wrong: you are right that Jobs called Lam not Chen. Easy enough mistake, but also doesn't change my original point.
With regard to the other issue: I said that Jobs called before Gizmodo ran the pictures (meaning all of those breakdown pictures which pretty much sealed the deal as this being more than just a rumor). You are right that Gizmodo ran a story prior to that, but they ran the pictures AFTER Jobs demanded the return. Guilty as hell, as I said, regardless of whether Lam or Chen answered the phone. (As if Lam didn't immediately call Chen to tell him that "the Steve" called and wanted his phone back.)
Thompson
Actually, I only got ONE fact wrong: you are right that Jobs called Lam not Chen. Easy enough mistake, but also doesn't change my original point.
With regard to the other issue: I said that Jobs called before Gizmodo ran the pictures (meaning all of those breakdown pictures which pretty much sealed the deal as this being more than just a rumor). You are right that Gizmodo ran a story prior to that, but they ran the pictures AFTER Jobs demanded the return. Guilty as hell, as I said, regardless of whether Lam or Chen answered the phone. (As if Lam didn't immediately call Chen to tell him that "the Steve" called and wanted his phone back.)
Thompson
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.
Not really. I have dead nerve endings. I'm just tired of people making themselves look like idiots in print.
That's easy enough to fix. If you'd stop posting, you'd stop looking like an idiot - at least online.
That's easy enough to fix. If you'd stop posting, you'd stop looking like an idiot - at least online.
You first.
Also, Tate DID NOT make a fool of himself. Read it again with an impartial view and any fool can see it was Steve who made a fool of HIMSELF.
You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. Actually, that's not true: One can, but in line with HOW one does business, not what the consumers can consume. If he want's that type of control he can move to China or the Middle East. They would be happy to take him. (actually, pornography in China in 200 made nearly double the USA numbers, so they may not want him either.)
Porn, as an industry, actually nearly competes with APPLE. Stating he plans to eliminate it is on par with pissing off the Taliban (hyperbole) and they have a large amount of influence that can hurt Apple, if they choose to.
Flash? I really don't care. It's crap. It can go. But forcing his morality on us? He sounds like all the hippies that had their fun and now want to ensure no one else does. It's like a parent telling you to not do everything they know they did.
Hypocrisy. Something I swore I would not do with my children. "Do as I say, not as I do" or in this case, did.
Don't use an icon that stood for actual freedom as your poster child to take that freedom away. That's pretty much Orwell's "1984" in a nutshell. To make something mean the opposite of what it originally meant and convince everyone the new meaning (New Speak) Is the correct one.
Also, Steve recants his statement within the exchange, from "it's about freedom..." to "It's not about freedom, it's about Apple trying to do what's right for its users."
Complete about face, in Steve's own words no less.
He went from Braveheart to British rule in a matter of paragraphs.
I now realize why all of you post the way you do: You sound just like Steve Jobs. ("You are so misinformed. No one kicked in any doors." - all news agencies reported the door was broken into and the garage open and I believe, though I may be wrong, local news posted images, and I'm willing to bet they sure as hell didn't pick the locks...but no, that didn't happen because I don't believe it did....) As I sit here typing this on my iMac, I am very acutely aware of and also very relieved that I have not sunk to such hero worship that I am attempting to mimic him.
Those are REAL psychological issues there......
Harley, dude ... give it up.
You are making yourself look like a fool here.
Not much of anything you are saying above is even close to true. I don't enjoy making you look stupid and I'm going to stop now, but please ... try looking at least a few things up before you post.
- You say that "You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. " but then defend Tate for doing exactly that.
- You say that Steve said he wants to "eliminate" porn when he said no such thing.
- You imply that the porn industry is going to get together and destroy Apple? WTF?
You're raving dude. Take a pill or something.
Then you finish off with a complete lie about seeing images of Apple "breaking into" this guys house when anyone can easily check on that and be certain that it never happened.
You're just making crap up willy-nilly here and anyone who engages you in argument is a bigger fool than you, so I'm just going to stop.
Harley, dude ... give it up.
You are making yourself look like a fool here.
Not much of anything you are saying above is even close to true. I don't enjoy making you look stupid and I'm going to stop now, but please ... try looking at least a few things up before you post.
- You say that "You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. " but then defend Tate for doing exactly that.
- You say that Steve said he wants to "eliminate" porn when he said no such thing.
- You imply that the porn industry is going to get together and destroy Apple? WTF?
You're raving dude. Take a pill or something.
Then you finish off with a complete lie about seeing images of Apple "breaking into" this guys house when anyone can easily check on that and be certain that it never happened.
You're just making crap up willy-nilly here and anyone who engages you in argument is a bigger fool than you, so I'm just going to stop.
You made that entire comment without re-reading the email exchange. I could do you a favor and post the ENTIRE exchange here if you'd like. You would just look even more idiotic.
Honestly, with your insistence upon editing facts via ignoring the ones that don't work for you, I'm not even going to bother to do the work. Anyone that wishes to see how little research you do is more than willing to go to the link. Anyone that chooses to maintain the fantasy world both you and they live in can just ignore it and live in your self maintained and deluded psychosis.
P.S.: And if you're going to truncate my name, at least spell it correctly. Though I don't think a respectful bone exists in your entire person, so I know I'm asking allot.
first the DA works out a plea with the thief. he will insist on at least one felony count, grand theft or whatever. the thief of course will have to roll on Giz to avoid jail time.
then with the iPhone's status as stolen established as a matter of law, the DA will charge whoever at Giz actually handed the thief the cash with receiving stolen property. Chen or whoever.
then they either they cop a plea to some minimal charge or dare a trial on major counts in some kind of martyr cause.
given the real chance of being convicted and serving hard time, and that the Giz guys are such obvious weenies (that email was pathetic), they will plead.
apple could then sue Giz, but I can't believe they will. no advantage to them to drag it all out.
in any real business with any ethics, all the Giz people responsible would resign at some point, or be fired. of course, Giz may not meet those criteria. it was all just a teenage prank, right?
here are some predictions - we'll see what really happens.
first the DA works out a plea with the thief. he will insist on at least one felony count, grand theft or whatever. the thief of course will have to roll on Giz to avoid jail time.
then with the iPhone's status as stolen established as a matter of law, the DA will charge whoever at Giz actually handed the thief the cash with receiving stolen property. Chen or whoever.
then they either they cop a plea to some minimal charge or dare a trial on major counts in some kind of martyr cause.
given the real chance of being convicted and serving hard time, and that the Giz guys are such obvious weenies (that email was pathetic), they will plead.
apple could then sue Giz, but I can't believe they will. no advantage to them to drag it all out.
in any real business with any ethics, all the Giz people responsible would resign at some point, or be fired. of course, Giz may not meet those criteria. it was all just a teenage prank, right?
Maybe, maybe....no one really knows until it happens, until former charges are filed, and then how much the DA feels he could actually get convicted. I doubt anyone at Gizmodo will actually see a charge brought against them, but I have been wrong before and am willing to admit it.
Let's see if you turn out to be right.
Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.
That's great. As you have said, their story was all we had and we could take it for what it was worth. We also have their statements of when they first saw it, that they were not sure it was authentic.
But since then, we now also have the police report, which mentions that Hogan was paid part of the money up front and part of the money was held until Apple confirmed it was real by announcing it. You can argue that that is irrelevant, but it is strange that you would argue that it isn't incorrect. Perhaps if you read the order you would know this. Perhaps not.
I 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.
You are correct that the story they published at the time says that they believed at that point that it was genuine and not Hogans property. Unfortunately for you, it is irrational to then take this as proof of what they knew to be true weeks earlier. Their story shows that at the time they published the article they knew it was not Hogans. It doesn't show that they believed this when they first saw the device and paid to examine it. That's just bad logic. The fact that they withheld payment shows that they had doubts about Hogans tale. By they time they published their story, they had been convinced.