Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Investigation Into Lost iPhone 4 Prototype Wrapping Up, Jobs Interviewed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Clearly you don't know the history.
The Apple Employee called many times, many days later to check if someone returned the phone.
Is the person wanted to return the phone, he would just come back at Bar the next day or call. He didn't wanted to return it! That why you can think that the phone stolen.
We will have to wait longer for the result, but I bed for Gizmodo having to pay something at the end(money, jail time, etc)
The Apple Employee called many times, many days later to check if someone returned the phone.
Is the person wanted to return the phone, he would just come back at Bar the next day or call. He didn't wanted to return it! That why you can think that the phone stolen.
We will have to wait longer for the result, but I bed for Gizmodo having to pay something at the end(money, jail time, etc)
Well, I've read the article on Wired, I've read some of the banter between Gizmodo and Apple... I remember, the Gizmodo staff turning off TVs using their super-remote at a convention...
I'm done going to their website for a while.
Seems all very amateur, low brow, very paparazzi like journalism to me.
I'm done going to their website for a while.
Seems all very amateur, low brow, very paparazzi like journalism to me.
Based on what Hogan has already admitted, I think that most of us agree that "at best" what he did was very wrong and certainly dishonest. Plain and simple. It's obvious that he made no reasonable effort to return the phone. His plan was to sell it off to the highest bidder.
Based on what Gizmodo has published and admitted to, most of us agree that what they did was very wrong, certainly dishonest and likely a felony.
If I find your wallet containing your ID and I make no reasonable effort to return it to you or at the very least give it to the police, but rather keep it while I attempt to profit from your misfortune, that makes me thief. That makes me a thief in the eyes of most reasonable people and based on what I have read about California law, it would make me a thief there as well.
Hogan had something that didn't belong to him. He Kept it, then sold it for profit. Giz bought the phone knowing that Hogan was not the rightful owner (I believe that they have already admitted this) They then published unreleased IP about the item that they obtained under "sketchy circumstances" which, in my opinion, will likely be proven to be illegal as well.
Any way that you slice it, Hogan behaved like a thief and a douche-bag as did Gizmodo.
My OPINION is that they are both guilty and that they will both be found guilty in a court of law.
Even if they're not found guilty in a court of law, based on what they've already admitted to, they're both still douche-bags.
The fact I can say whatever I want. I can freely express my opinion. That's what a forum is for. What gives you the right to tell me what I should all be saying ?
What did you expect I was going to answer to your proposal for double standards.
Rant emotionally with little regards to fact ?
I guess I have too much expectations for rational discussions... Light them torches, there be some witches to burn!
Actually, it is.
This is a discussion forum, we could theoretically talk about a mass plague of Zombie Kittens until the mods intervene.
You're a tool.
You're a tool.
You:
Location:
Quebec, Canada
Interests:
Trolling Internet forums
Occupation:
You're a tool.
You:
Location:
Quebec, Canada
Interests:
Trolling Internet forums
Occupation:
What did you expect I was going to answer to your proposal for double standards.
Actually, all these posts have been answers to YOUR double standards.
What makes you say that? I'd like to see a source on your assertion.
What about what was found at Chen's place which connects him directly with Gawker, Gizmodo in the entire transaction?
Hint: Sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code
You never do that. I can tell, you're a stand-up mother-****er.
No charges have been pressed because, the investigation is still ongoing.
There are far more serious questions at stake than did they make a satisfactory attempt, which in my humble opinion it's obvious if you have any ethical bone in your body, they did not!
You're still a tool.
Probably the same reason people fire back at you. You have such a wonderful attitude and since you seem to know everything about everything.
Being as this is a forum we can say what we like right!
Being as this is a forum we can say what we like right!
Key points that would be debated in a court of law and decided upon by a judge in said court of law unless the charged party decided to enter a guilty plea.
Until then, heck, until charges are even pressed, anyone condemning and screaming "GUILTY!" is wrong, under the United States' judicial system and under the provisions that make it so an individual is Innocent until proven guilty.
What a hard concept.
The fact I can say whatever I want. I can freely express my opinion. That's what a forum is for. What gives you the right to tell me what I should all be saying ?
What did you expect I was going to answer to your proposal for double standards.
Rant emotionally with little regards to fact ?
KnightWRX, you do seem to be coming off as somewhat of a troll, but whatever.
As the above post pointed out, you tried saying that it was wrong to discuss our opinions, and then bemoan the fact that other people are trying to tell you what you can and cannot say. I definitely see some contradiction there.
You have your view, as has been made painstakingly clear, others have theirs. But whereas myself and others have stated the reasons to why we have our opinions you have not. So if you want to show that "Rational discussion" is possible by yourself, why don't you explain why you have come to the conclusion that there was no wrong doing, criminal or otherwise, in this sordid story. Because otherwise all you are doing is arguing for arguments sake.
As the above post pointed out, you tried saying that it was wrong to discuss our opinions, and then bemoan the fact that other people are trying to tell you what you can and cannot say. I definitely see some contradiction there.
You have your view, as has been made painstakingly clear, others have theirs. But whereas myself and others have stated the reasons to why we have our opinions you have not. So if you want to show that "Rational discussion" is possible by yourself, why don't you explain why you have come to the conclusion that there was no wrong doing, criminal or otherwise, in this sordid story. Because otherwise all you are doing is arguing for arguments sake.