Geohot Hints at Plans After Sony Settlement

[Emergent]

That'd be cool, wouldn't it?

Not really, other than responding to the "you've got a message" thing in my inbox and reading the articles, I don't really do too much here but watch moviebob and ZP. I wouldn't make a very good mod at all. The rest of course, is just more of your touchy-feely gibberish. For someone who protests not to care about so many different things all in one thread, it sure seems very important to you to make sure the rest of us know how you feel about whatever it is that comes to mind.

 

[JDKJ]

That'd be cool, wouldn't it?

Not really, other than responding to the "you've got a message" thing in my inbox and reading the articles, I don't really do too much here but watch moviebob and ZP. I wouldn't make a very good mod at all. The rest of course, is just more of your touchy-feely gibberish. For someone who protests not to care about so many different things all in one thread, it sure seems very important to you to make sure the rest of us know how you feel about whatever it is that comes to mind.

Do you even realize that this is now the fifth time in a row you have erroneously claimed "appeal to emotion" and used that as a basis to summarily dismiss me?

force of hab·it n. Behavior that has become automatic through long practice or frequent repetition.

one-trick pony n. a person or thing considered as being limited to only one single talent, capability, quality, etc.

 

[Emergent]

That'd be cool, wouldn't it?

Not really, other than responding to the "you've got a message" thing in my inbox and reading the articles, I don't really do too much here but watch moviebob and ZP. I wouldn't make a very good mod at all. The rest of course, is just more of your touchy-feely gibberish. For someone who protests not to care about so many different things all in one thread, it sure seems very important to you to make sure the rest of us know how you feel about whatever it is that comes to mind.

Do you even realize that this is now the fifth time in a row you have erroneously claimed "appeal to emotion" and used that as a basis to summarily dismiss me?

In all fairness, you did make some snotty demands, too, I guess, but as you keep repeatedly making emotional appeals, I'll just keep dismissing them for what they are. It's not that hard to call a duck a duck.

The definitions are cute, but they're so regular now I'm just gonna treat it like you got Webster's Turret's or something and politely let it slide.

 

[JDKJ]

That'd be cool, wouldn't it?

Not really, other than responding to the "you've got a message" thing in my inbox and reading the articles, I don't really do too much here but watch moviebob and ZP. I wouldn't make a very good mod at all. The rest of course, is just more of your touchy-feely gibberish. For someone who protests not to care about so many different things all in one thread, it sure seems very important to you to make sure the rest of us know how you feel about whatever it is that comes to mind.

Do you even realize that this is now the fifth time in a row you have erroneously claimed "appeal to emotion" and used that as a basis to summarily dismiss me?

In all fairness, you did make some snotty demands, too, I guess, but as you keep repeatedly making emotional appeals, I'll just keep dismissing them for what they are. It's not that hard to call a duck a duck.

The definitions are cute, but they're so regular now I'm just gonna treat it like you got Webster's Turret's or something and politely let it slide.

Do you even understand what constitutes the fallacy of an "appeal to emotion?" Contrary to your repeated claims, it has nothing to do with the emotions of the appellant. Rather, as its name should have suggested to you, it appeals to the emotions of the appellant's audience. If you are going to repeatedly rely on the same claim, perhaps you should try to rely on a claim that actually bears some validity.

And if you didn't so frequently take my words of obvious meaning, disregard the obvious meaning, and supplant that with some silly-assed meaning of your own, then perhaps I wouldn't feel so compelled to provide you the obvious meaning by way of quotation from Merriam-Webster.

Dingy, dingy, dingy, dingy, dingy, dingy, dingy, dingy, Batman!!!

 

[JDKJ]

You got a lotta nerve.

Yes, I do. Thank you. As to the rest: more emotional appeals, it is irrelevant that you don't like it when someone else points out that you are behaving like an abusive ass, all you have to do is cease, and I have no argument to make. As it is, it's a good argument, and you yourself provide all the evidence anyone needs to see it.

Fine. Then I guess you, like the Biblical Job, have now resolved to having your patience tried and will no longer be bellyaching to me (who, truth be told, couldn't care less) when it is tried.

And if, as you claim, I'm "an abusive ass," then, instead of taking it upon yourself to be the Escapist's Batman in a cape with a gadget-laden utility belt, why don't you simply click that big, red REPORT button that pops up with each and every one of my posts? Or have you you already tried that route and had the mods completely ignore you? Maybe you should look into becoming a mod here? You're certainly willing to be a self-deputized one. But the line between a self-deputized mod and an annoying troll is a very thin one. And apparently easily crossed. I think you'd benefit from a more official status. Maybe they'll let you have one of those shiny silver Escapist Moderator badges that you can then hang off your utility belt. That'd be cool, wouldn't it?

That'd be cool, wouldn't it?

Not really, other than responding to the "you've got a message" thing in my inbox and reading the articles, I don't really do too much here but watch moviebob and ZP. I wouldn't make a very good mod at all. The rest of course, is just more of your touchy-feely gibberish. For someone who protests not to care about so many different things all in one thread, it sure seems very important to you to make sure the rest of us know how you feel about whatever it is that comes to mind.

And look, Champ, why don't you just man-up and call like it really is: you don't give a rat's ass about protecting the Escapist from my vitriol. That's just an obvious pretext, given that the Escapist apparently has a small army of mods who've repeatedly demonstrated no reluctance to body-slam posters, including myself, who violate the forum rules. So quit singing that bullshit song. If you were willing to call the spade a spade, you'd admit that you're simply salty because I've owned you on so many different occasions on some many different legal issues. But that ain't really my fault. You should have been smart enough to figure out early in the game that I've forgotten more law than you will ever learn and that your getting owned by me in a debate on a legal issue was a foregone conclusion. But, having gotten owned, to be all salty about that and carry a perpetual grudge is kinda childish and immature. People gettin' owned on the intertubes happens every day. That you got owned ain't that big a deal. Suck it up and move along.

 

[Asehujiko]

Ah the telltale thing fans do when their team sucks. Blame the refs.

A perfect analogy to somebody with a weak stance in a court case. Blame the judges.

There are ways to protest the things Sony have done in the name of fighting piracy but Geo had lost from the get-go on this one. He probably at least used a bit of that donation money on his lawyers for a little while so they could advise him, "Dude, you won't win this. You're wrong. Settle out of court while you can."

And there's no way in Hell that Stewart Kellar could have been telling him with a straight face that there was even a remote chance of winning. You just have to look at the "strategy" they were employing (e.g., obvious lies like "I've never heard of SCEA before now" and "I'm George's neighbor and the PS3 that that was connected to his ISP was mine because my ISP wasn't yet up and running so I borrowed his" and tampering with physical evidence ordered produced by the Court and leaving the country when you knew you had to be available for a deposition, etc., etc., etc.) to know that these were desperate measures being used by desperate people. There is no way George Hotz seriously thought he was going to go all the way and prevail over Sony. Hell, no. He knew early on in the game that he held a hand of cards that didn't even contain a pair of threes against Sony's royal straight flush in spades.

1. Please re-read the "didn't know SCEA" article. You missed a very important detail.
2. Please read the follow up article to the "tampering evidence" stuff. That was Sony being incompetent at computers, not Geohot doing anything wrong.
3. Please read the follow up article to the PSN keys one. Sony quietly admitted that was an error on their part.
4. WTF is your beef with Geohot? You show up in every single thread about him only to rage at everybody that he's the devil incarnate when they're approaching the situation more level headed then you.

His lawyer probably made a cost projection and came to the conclusion that there's absolutely no way of winning on a $100.000 budget against a corrupt entity that can pay judges to hand them info on millions of people all while stalling the case on deciding where to settle(in a situation of federal law vs eula).

 

[JDKJ]

Ah the telltale thing fans do when their team sucks. Blame the refs.

A perfect analogy to somebody with a weak stance in a court case. Blame the judges.

There are ways to protest the things Sony have done in the name of fighting piracy but Geo had lost from the get-go on this one. He probably at least used a bit of that donation money on his lawyers for a little while so they could advise him, "Dude, you won't win this. You're wrong. Settle out of court while you can."

And there's no way in Hell that Stewart Kellar could have been telling him with a straight face that there was even a remote chance of winning. You just have to look at the "strategy" they were employing (e.g., obvious lies like "I've never heard of SCEA before now" and "I'm George's neighbor and the PS3 that that was connected to his ISP was mine because my ISP wasn't yet up and running so I borrowed his" and tampering with physical evidence ordered produced by the Court and leaving the country when you knew you had to be available for a deposition, etc., etc., etc.) to know that these were desperate measures being used by desperate people. There is no way George Hotz seriously thought he was going to go all the way and prevail over Sony. Hell, no. He knew early on in the game that he held a hand of cards that didn't even contain a pair of threes against Sony's royal straight flush in spades.

1. Please re-read the "didn't know SCEA" article. You missed a very important detail.
2. Please read the follow up article to the "tampering evidence" stuff. That was Sony being incompetent at computers, not Geohot doing anything wrong.
3. Please read the follow up article to the PSN keys one. Sony quietly admitted that was an error on their part.
4. WTF is your beef with Geohot? You show up in every single thread about him only to rage at everybody that he's the devil incarnate when they're approaching the situation more level headed then you.

His lawyer probably made a cost projection and came to the conclusion that there's absolutely no way of winning on a $100.000 budget against a corrupt entity that can pay judges to hand them info on millions of people all while stalling the case on deciding where to settle(in a situation of federal law vs eula).

1. If you have a point to make, then make it. But sending me off on a scavenger hunt to read an article in order to find something that you expect me to find when I have no idea what you expect me to find isn't a very practical way for you to make whatever point you're trying to make. You might as well just send me off to go search for a needle in a haystack.

2. I will respond to the point you've made and which I can in fact easily discern without having to rummage in a haystack:

If you think that removing, prior to producing physical evidence, a competent of that evidence which would have been present under normal use and operation and is required to make the evidence usable and operable in the hands of the third-party responsible for reviewing that evidence isn't tampering with evidence, then you might not have the best understanding of what constitutes tampering with evidence. And it doesn't matter that the third-party reviewer can go down to their local Radio Shack and purchase the removed component, install it, and thereby regain use and operation. What matters is that it was removed prior to production.

And, as an aside, it doesn't appear to me, notwithstanding Stewart Kellar's self-interested assertions, that it was SCEA's "incompeten[ce] at computers" afoot as much as it was the third-party reviewer (who is actually a forensic expert in computers) also complaining that they couldn't review the evidence in the state in which it was received by them. Are you suggesting a party that professionally examines computers and their components and information contained therein has no competence in the field? Possible, but not likely.

3. Again, if you can clarify your point about the "PSN keys" that you're attempting to make, I'll respond to it as best I can. But as you've stated it above, I'm not exactly sure what point you're making. I have my suspicions, but would prefer you clarify your point rather than I proceed upon suspicions. And I damn sure ain't going off rummaging in no haystacks, tryin' to figure it out.

4. My beef with EgoHot is that he's an asshole incarnate. Do I need a better justification? I don't think so. And it's my beef. I get to cook it and eat it any way I want.

Your cost-benefit analysis argument is belied by EgoHot himself, who confidently -- "arrogantly" may be a better word choice -- stated mere weeks before he settled that he had received more than enough donations to his Legal Defense Fund to continue litigating against SCEA for the foreseeable future. If you ask me, it was more a boast and an upraised middle finger at SCEA than a statement of fact.

 

[Emergent]

Do you even understand what constitutes the fallacy of an "appeal to emotion?" Contrary to your repeated claims, it has nothing to do with the emotions of the appellant. Rather, as its name should have suggested to you, it appeals to the emotions of the appellant's audience. If you are going to repeatedly rely on the same claim, perhaps you should try to rely on a claim that actually bears some validity.

You are discussing enargeia, a particular kind of Pathos (a pathetic, or emotional, appeal, as termed by Aristotle) and had you made it just a bit further past the first page of google you wouldn't have so easily missed that there is more than one kind of emotional appeal. I am accusing you of pejorative language, which is an entirely different form of pathos, and you do not just rely on it but lace almost every sentence of your posts with such volumes that there is no debate on this point. It is plainly obvious.

And if you didn't so frequently take my words of obvious meaning, disregard the obvious meaning, and supplant that with some silly-assed meaning of your own, then perhaps I wouldn't feel so compelled to provide you the obvious meaning by way of quotation from Merriam-Webster.

If you wouldn't mangle the meanings of words so much, I wouldn't have to correct you. As it is, agreeing on the terms of a debate is the first step to reasoned discourse. You seem to think that you, solely, are allowed to dictate those. You are sorely mistaken in every context.

And look, Champ, why don't you just man-up and call like it really is: you don't give a rat's ass about protecting the Escapist from my vitriol. That's just an obvious pretext, given that the Escapist apparently has a small army of mods who've repeatedly demonstrated no reluctance to body-slam posters, including myself, who violate the forum rules. So quit singing that bullshit song. If you were willing to call the spade a spade, you'd admit that you're simply salty because I've owned you on so many different occasions on some many different legal issues. But that ain't really my fault. You should have been smart enough to figure out early in the game that I've forgotten more law than you will ever learn and that your getting owned by me in a debate on a legal issue was a foregone conclusion. But, having gotten owned, to be all salty about that and carry a perpetual grudge is kinda childish and immature. People gettin' owned on the intertubes happens every day. That you got owned ain't that big a deal. Suck it up and move along.

Eppur si muove!

I haven't seen someone trump their own horn so completely in quite a while. This is literary masturbation, written not to convince anyone of anything except to confirm the author's own sense of self importance and self-proclaimed "victory." Let's just let it stand as an example of how not to win people over to your argument.

 

[JDKJ]

Do you even understand what constitutes the fallacy of an "appeal to emotion?" Contrary to your repeated claims, it has nothing to do with the emotions of the appellant. Rather, as its name should have suggested to you, it appeals to the emotions of the appellant's audience. If you are going to repeatedly rely on the same claim, perhaps you should try to rely on a claim that actually bears some validity.

You are discussing enargeia, a particular kind of Pathos (a pathetic, or emotional, appeal, as termed by Aristotle) and had you made it just a bit further past the first page of google you wouldn't have so easily missed that there is more than one kind of emotional appeal. I am accusing you of pejorative language, which is an entirely different form of pathos, and you do not just rely on it but lace almost every sentence of your posts with such volumes that there is no debate on this point. It is plainly obvious.

And if you didn't so frequently take my words of obvious meaning, disregard the obvious meaning, and supplant that with some silly-assed meaning of your own, then perhaps I wouldn't feel so compelled to provide you the obvious meaning by way of quotation from Merriam-Webster.

If you wouldn't mangle the meanings of words so much, I wouldn't have to correct you. As it is, agreeing on the terms of a debate is the first step to reasoned discourse. You seem to think that you, solely, are allowed to dictate those. You are sorely mistaken in every context.

And look, Champ, why don't you just man-up and call like it really is: you don't give a rat's ass about protecting the Escapist from my vitriol. That's just an obvious pretext, given that the Escapist apparently has a small army of mods who've repeatedly demonstrated no reluctance to body-slam posters, including myself, who violate the forum rules. So quit singing that bullshit song. If you were willing to call the spade a spade, you'd admit that you're simply salty because I've owned you on so many different occasions on some many different legal issues. But that ain't really my fault. You should have been smart enough to figure out early in the game that I've forgotten more law than you will ever learn and that your getting owned by me in a debate on a legal issue was a foregone conclusion. But, having gotten owned, to be all salty about that and carry a perpetual grudge is kinda childish and immature. People gettin' owned on the intertubes happens every day. That you got owned ain't that big a deal. Suck it up and move along.

Eppur si muove!

I haven't seen someone trump their own horn so completely in quite a while. This is literary masturbation, written not to convince anyone of anything except to confirm the author's own sense of self importance and self-proclaimed "victory." Let's just let it stand as an example of how not to win people over to your argument.

The aspect of 'net forums that I thoroughly appreciate is that once I quote you, the words you typed are forever stuck there and you can't do a thing to take them back or restate what you typed, no matter how hard you try.

What you said, in your very own words (and this is the point at which I get to quote those words) is that "[a]s an emotional appeal, based solely on your feelings . . . ." In fact, you use the word "feelings" repeatedly -- and variations thereof, like "touchy-feely". That has nothing to do with an accusation of using "pejorative language" in making an appeal to emotion. A "pejorative" is a word that tends to belittle or disparage. That isn't at all upon what you based your repeated claim that I'm making appeals to emotion. You clearly stated that I was involving my own personal feelings in my responses to you thereby making emotional appeals and thereby giving you a basis to dismiss and ignore them.

You can try to run around the boxing ring all day long but you can't hide and will eventually get cornered with no escape (no matter how many fancy Latin terms you use while running). Not when your previously stated words are immutable and can be used against you.

And saying one thing yesterday and then trying to claim you said some other thing today is yet another example of your silly-assed rhetorical ploys worthy of no one beyond the level of elementary school.

And you might not have noticed, but I gave up long ago on trying to win you over to any argument. At this point in time, I'm just tearin' your ass up for the sheer fun of it-- and because I can. You make it easy for me to do so.

 

[Emergent]

The aspect of 'net forums that I thoroughly appreciate is that once I quote you, the words you typed are forever stuck there and you can't do a thing to take them back or restate what you typed, no matter how hard you try.

What you said, in your very own words (and this is the point at which I get to quote those words) is that "[a]s an emotional appeal, based solely on your feelings . . . ." In fact, you use the word "feelings" repeatedly -- and variations thereof, like "touchy-feely". That has nothing to do with an accusation of using "pejorative language" in making an appeal to emotion. A "pejorative" is a word that tends to belittle or disparage. That isn't at all upon what you based your repeated claims I'm making appeals to emotion. You clearly stated that I was involving my own personal feelings in my responses to you thereby making emotional appeals and thereby giving you a basis to dismiss and ignore them.

You can try to run around the boxing ring all day long but you can't hide and will eventually get cornered with no escape (no matter how many fancy Latin terms you use while running). Not when your previously stated words are immutable and can be used against you.

And saying one thing yesterday and then trying to claim you said some other thing today is yet another example of your silly-assed rhetorical ploys worthy of no one beyond the level of elementary school.

And you might not have noticed, but I gave up long ago on trying to win you over to any argument. Now I'm just tearin' your ass up for the sheer fun of it-- and because I can. You make it easy for me to do so.

Your definition of "winning" reminds me of Charlie Sheen. Maybe if you spew enough bullshit, your circular logic will start to make sense. Yes, when you use demeaning language to imply that your feelings about someone else, or their arguments, is grounds enough to ridicule them, that is both emotional and pejorative. That I state your language is pejorative does not somehow prevent me from dismissing your feelings as well. Nor does it change the fact that you're using emotional language in an attempt to sway your audience.

 

[JDKJ]

The aspect of 'net forums that I thoroughly appreciate is that once I quote you, the words you typed are forever stuck there and you can't do a thing to take them back or restate what you typed, no matter how hard you try.

What you said, in your very own words (and this is the point at which I get to quote those words) is that "[a]s an emotional appeal, based solely on your feelings . . . ." In fact, you use the word "feelings" repeatedly -- and variations thereof, like "touchy-feely". That has nothing to do with an accusation of using "pejorative language" in making an appeal to emotion. A "pejorative" is a word that tends to belittle or disparage. That isn't at all upon what you based your repeated claims I'm making appeals to emotion. You clearly stated that I was involving my own personal feelings in my responses to you thereby making emotional appeals and thereby giving you a basis to dismiss and ignore them.

You can try to run around the boxing ring all day long but you can't hide and will eventually get cornered with no escape (no matter how many fancy Latin terms you use while running). Not when your previously stated words are immutable and can be used against you.

And saying one thing yesterday and then trying to claim you said some other thing today is yet another example of your silly-assed rhetorical ploys worthy of no one beyond the level of elementary school.

And you might not have noticed, but I gave up long ago on trying to win you over to any argument. Now I'm just tearin' your ass up for the sheer fun of it-- and because I can. You make it easy for me to do so.

Your definition of "winning" reminds me of Charlie Sheen. Maybe if you spew enough bullshit, your circular logic will start to make sense. Yes, when you use demeaning language to imply that your feelings about someone else, or their arguments, is grounds enough to ridicule them, that is both emotional and pejorative. That I state your language is pejorative does not somehow prevent me from dismissing your feelings as well. Nor does it change the fact that you're using emotional language in an attempt to sway your audience.

I'd give you a "nice try" but it don't even qualify as that. You sound like a rat, caught in a trap, gnawing it's own leg off in order to escape.

 

[Emergent]

I'd give you a "nice try" but it don't even qualify as that. You sound like a rat, caught in a trap, gnawing it's own leg off in order to escape.

Aww, no reason to get bitchy. I'm sure you can google some more and find something better than that. Rise above your baser instincts, doing so elevates the discussion.

 

[JDKJ]

I'd give you a "nice try" but it don't even qualify as that. You sound like a rat, caught in a trap, gnawing it's own leg off in order to escape.

Aww, no reason to get bitchy. I'm sure you can google some more and find something better than that. Rise above your baser instincts, doing so elevates the discussion.

Why would I have any reason to be "bitchy?" I'm not the one with the leg firmly caught between the jaws of a trap. That would be you, not me. Matter of fact, I'm gettin' much amusement from knowing that you stuck your own leg in your own trap. That shit is funny.

 

[Emergent]

Why would I have any reason to be "bitchy?" I'm not the one with the leg firmly caught between the jaws of a trap. That would be you, not me. Matter of fact, I'm gettin' much amusement from knowing that you stuck your own leg in your own trap. That shit is funny.

If you don't have a reason to be bitchy, stop, well, being so bitchy. It isn't my place to justify your ridiculous antics.

 

[JDKJ]

Why would I have any reason to be "bitchy?" I'm not the one with the leg firmly caught between the jaws of a trap. That would be you, not me. Matter of fact, I'm gettin' much amusement from knowing that you stuck your own leg in your own trap. That shit is funny.

If you don't have a reason to be bitchy, stop, well, being so bitchy. It isn't my place to justify your ridiculous antics.

As I said, I'm not being "bitchy." Matter of fact, I'm still laughing out loud thinking about how I caught you out for making that silly-assed claim of "emotional appeals base solely on [my] feelings" that didn't even satisfy the definition of an appeal to emotion (because you based it on a reference to my feelings and not on an appeal to your feelings) and then, when you realized you'd been caught out, started shuckin' and jivin' and duckin' and dodgin' and spittin' and splutterin' in feeble attempts to extricate yourself from your self-created bucket of fail. As I said, that shit is funny. Or, if you'll allow me to steal a play from your book and change what I originally said, that shit is fucking hilarious.

 

[Emergent]

As I said, I'm not being "bitchy."

Sure you are. The rest of us see it. You don't have to.

 

[JDKJ]

As I said, I'm not being "bitchy."

Sure you are. The rest of us see it. You don't have to.

Outta pure curiosity, who are these "rest of us" that you claim see things?

 

[Emergent]

Outta pure curiosity, who are these "rest of us" that you claim see things?

Scroll up. I'm not the only one questioning whether you even know who it is you're insulting when you sling your vitriol, when and if you'll actually lose a gasket, are worthy of mod censure (nice probation notice), or seem to have some kind of irrational hatred for Geo. Going and quoting everyone is more effort than you're worth, however, so you'll have to go back and dig it out yourself if your curiosity is indeed pure.

 

[JDKJ]

Outta pure curiosity, who are these "rest of us" that you claim see things?

Scroll up. I'm not the only one questioning whether you even know who it is you're insulting when you sling your vitriol, when and if you'll actually lose a gasket, are worthy of mod censure (nice probation notice), or seem to have some kind of irrational hatred for Geo. Going and quoting everyone is more effort than you're worth, however, so you'll have to go back and dig it out yourself if your curiosity is indeed pure.

Jesus Christ! You wanna talk about logical fallacies?! Here's one for ya (and, since you seem to be a fan of fancy Latin terms, I'm sure you'll have no difficult translating it into English): argumentum ad populum.

And, if it isn't a logical fallacy, scroll further up and see where not everyone thinks I don't occasionally make a good point or post.

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam: silly-assed rhetorical ploys not worthy of anyone beyond the level of elementary school.

But, please, don't stop. As I said before, I'm quite enjoying tearin' your ass up at will.