Geohot Hints at Plans After Sony Settlement

[JDKJ]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

Not to mention when a donation is asked for, in this case it was, it follows the rule that the money has to go to the cause. Using the money for something else then becomes fraud, using part of the money for yourself become embezzlement. When you donate to a cause you damn sure have the right to demand your money back when the promise goes unfulfilled. Hence why the government tends to get uppity when a random person starts accepting donations for a charity.

I mean, Jesus Christ, if he was actually correct in his mistaken assertion that you can take people's money on a promise to do a particular thing with it and then do whatever you want with it and the donor can't do a thing about, then I would immediately quit typing posts to the Escapist forums and, instead, get to developing my website where I solicit donations. And booking a high-roller suite in Vegas and planning for my next stripper-filled weekend there.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!!" "Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

 

[JDKJ]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

He wasn't threatening you with death or marriage, at least as far as i know, he might have in your case. lol

Good luck using that clause in court.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the point of my giving you two examples of cases were a donation (i.e., a "gift") given on condition of "X" can indeed and in fact and by well-established law be revoked by the donor and its return sought from the donee if condition "X" is never satisfied.

Trust me, if I donate to a charitable organization or some other entity who solicits my donation on the condition of doing "X" with it and they then turn around and deliberately do other than "X" with it, knowing full well beforehand that they had no intention of doing "X" with it, you can bet your ass that I am entitled, under various principles of American jurisprudence, not the least of which are "fraud" and "obtaining property by false pretense," to the return of my donation.

He asked you for money for his Legal fees did he not? Since the conditions of this settlement are "confidential" can he not say he used all of that money to pay his lawyers, if so, what right do you have to say the conditions under which you donated was not satisfied? (assuming he didn't just straight out said "I didn't have to pay any legal fee" since i don't follow the jackass, if so you win)

the man never gave you the specifics as to what he was using the money other than its needed for "legal Fees" in which case he has made no false pretense. You didn't donate to him going to trial or having him settle, you gave him money willy nilly so he can pay for lawyers.

You are a drowning man. Here is a straw: * throws straw*. Clutch it.

 

[DTWolfwood]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

He wasn't threatening you with death or marriage, at least as far as i know, he might have in your case. lol

Good luck using that clause in court.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the point of my giving you two examples of cases were a donation (i.e., a "gift") given on condition of "X" can indeed and in fact and by well-established law be revoked by the donor and its return sought from the donee if condition "X" is never satisfied.

Trust me, if I donate to a charitable organization or some other entity who solicits my donation on the condition of doing "X" with it and they then turn around and deliberately do other than "X" with it, knowing full well beforehand that they had no intention of doing "X" with it, you can bet your ass that I am entitled, under various principles of American jurisprudence, not the least of which are "fraud" and "obtaining property by false pretense," to the return of my donation.

He asked you for money for his Legal fees did he not? Since the conditions of this settlement are "confidential" can he not say he used all of that money to pay his lawyers, if so, what right do you have to say the conditions under which you donated was not satisfied? (assuming he didn't just straight out said "I didn't have to pay any legal fee" since i don't follow the jackass, if so you win)

the man never gave you the specifics as to what he was using the money other than its needed for "legal Fees" in which case he has made no false pretense. You didn't donate to him going to trial or having him settle, you gave him money willy nilly so he can pay for lawyers.

You are a drowning man. Here is a straw: * throws straw*. Clutch it.

what no rebuttal?

So his lawyers worked for free all this time?

 

[JDKJ]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

He wasn't threatening you with death or marriage, at least as far as i know, he might have in your case. lol

Good luck using that clause in court.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the point of my giving you two examples of cases were a donation (i.e., a "gift") given on condition of "X" can indeed and in fact and by well-established law be revoked by the donor and its return sought from the donee if condition "X" is never satisfied.

Trust me, if I donate to a charitable organization or some other entity who solicits my donation on the condition of doing "X" with it and they then turn around and deliberately do other than "X" with it, knowing full well beforehand that they had no intention of doing "X" with it, you can bet your ass that I am entitled, under various principles of American jurisprudence, not the least of which are "fraud" and "obtaining property by false pretense," to the return of my donation.

He asked you for money for his Legal fees did he not? Since the conditions of this settlement are "confidential" can he not say he used all of that money to pay his lawyers, if so, what right do you have to say the conditions under which you donated was not satisfied? (assuming he didn't just straight out said "I didn't have to pay any legal fee" since i don't follow the jackass, if so you win)

the man never gave you the specifics as to what he was using the money other than its needed for "legal Fees" in which case he has made no false pretense. You didn't donate to him going to trial or having him settle, you gave him money willy nilly so he can pay for lawyers.

You are a drowning man. Here is a straw: * throws straw*. Clutch it.

what no rebuttal?

So his lawyers worked for free all this time?

I can't rebut you. I'm too busy wondering how you ever learned to ride your bicycle into a puddle of fail and then immediately start to back-pedal your way out of it. That's an impressive trick and one that has rendered me speechless in amazement at your pedaling skills.

 

[Sylveria]

Sure they have the right to protect their buisness from piracy.

Except GeoHot wasn't, and isn't, a pirate.

No, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. But there does appear to be a truckload of evidence that he facilitated piracy.

By that logic, a gun manufacturer could be facilitating murder, armed robbery, etc., since, after all, they put the item out there. That's the same thought process people use to say violent games make people violent. Just because someone puts out an idea or product, you can't say what crimes people may commit with/because of it makes the creator culpable for those individuals' actions.

 

[JDKJ]

Sure they have the right to protect their buisness from piracy.

Except GeoHot wasn't, and isn't, a pirate.

No, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. But there does appear to be a truckload of evidence that he facilitated piracy.

By that logic, a gun manufacturer could be facilitating murder, armed robbery, etc., since, after all, they put the item out there. That's the same thought process people use to say violent games make people violent. Just because someone puts out an idea or product, you can't say what crimes people may commit with/because of it makes the creator culpable for those individuals' actions.

Oh, Lord, here we go again with the apples and the oranges.

And what's up with the complete absence of any originality?! Why do all the apples to oranges comparisons have to involve either cars or guns?! It's bad enough that the ill-placed comparisons are invariably made, but do they also invariable have to involve cars and guns?

Lord, have mercy and give me strength!

 

[DTWolfwood]

the man never gave you the specifics as to what he was using the money other than its needed for "legal Fees" in which case he has made no false pretense. You didn't donate to him going to trial or having him settle, you gave him money willy nilly so he can pay for lawyers.

Actually the donations were asked to mount a legal defense against Sony. No defense is made if they settle out of court.The lawyers were just part of the cost.
Therefore by mounting no legal defense he failed to fulfill his end of the bargain. Everyone is entitled to their money back. He would then have to pay the lawyers out of his own pocket.

well that was clear and concise thank you sir

 

[JDKJ]

the man never gave you the specifics as to what he was using the money other than its needed for "legal Fees" in which case he has made no false pretense. You didn't donate to him going to trial or having him settle, you gave him money willy nilly so he can pay for lawyers.

Actually the donations were asked to mount a legal defense against Sony. No defense is made if they settle out of court.The lawyers were just part of the cost.
Therefore by mounting no legal defense he failed to fulfill his end of the bargain. Everyone is entitled to their money back. He would then have to pay the lawyers out of his own pocket.

I mean, Jesus Christ, if he was actually correct in his mistaken assertion that you can take people's money on a promise to do a particular thing with it and then do whatever you want with it and the donor can't do a thing about, then I would immediately quit typing posts to the Escapist forums and, instead, get to developing my website where I solicit donations. And booking a high-roller suite in Vegas and planning for my next stripper-filled weekend there.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!!" "Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

By God someone has to make it rain on dem hoes. Will somebody please think of dem hoes!?

There's also the the part where he clearly and unequivocally stated that any monies left over would be donated to the EFF. I ain't heard a peep outta him about any donation being made to the EFF. If I was the EFF, I'd be picking up the phone to ask him what's up my fucking money and when I'm gonna get it.

 

[Emergent]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: rather than focus on the more obviously intended "action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously," you wanna latch on to "maneuver," the one word dangling off the end of the definition, as if that would be the part I most intended.

Look here, Slick, you ain't slick. Not by a long shot. Trust me on that.

I don't where or on who you were able to try that feeble-minded nonsense and actually succeed with the result that it has apparently now become a force of habit for you, but here's the bad news: that ain't gonna work with everyone -- not anyone with an IQ higher than the number of their fingers and toes.

And here's more bad news for you: it makes you a complete and utter bore.

You seem to be confusing my refusal to let someone else dictate the terms of the debate with sloppy rhetorics (that's you) with "a force of habit" of my own, and that would be expected of someone as ego-centric as you have proven yourself to be. I may not be slick, but you aren't any sort of authority on basically anything, either. That's where we are similar. The difference between us is this: I'm not trying to be slick.

Sure they have the right to protect their buisness from piracy.

Except GeoHot wasn't, and isn't, a pirate.

No, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. But there does appear to be a truckload of evidence that he facilitated piracy.

By that logic, a gun manufacturer could be facilitating murder, armed robbery, etc., since, after all, they put the item out there. That's the same thought process people use to say violent games make people violent. Just because someone puts out an idea or product, you can't say what crimes people may commit with/because of it makes the creator culpable for those individuals' actions.

Oh, Lord, here we go again with the apples and the oranges.

And what's up with the complete absence of any originality?! Why do all the apples to oranges comparisons have to involve either cars or guns?! It's bad enough that the ill-placed comparisons are invariably made, but do they also invariable have to involve cars and guns?

Lord, have mercy and give me strength!

I just caught this. Syl, notice he never actually addressed your argument here, he just ridiculed you for making it.

 

[JDKJ]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: rather than focus on the more obviously intended "action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously," you wanna latch on to "maneuver," the one word dangling off the end of the definition, as if that would be the part I most intended.

Look here, Slick, you ain't slick. Not by a long shot. Trust me on that.

I don't where or on who you were able to try that feeble-minded nonsense and actually succeed with the result that it has apparently now become a force of habit for you, but here's the bad news: that ain't gonna work with everyone -- not anyone with an IQ higher than the number of their fingers and toes.

And here's more bad news for you: it makes you a complete and utter bore.

You seem to be confusing my refusal to let someone else dictate the terms of the debate with sloppy rhetorics (that's you) with "a force of habit" of my own, and that would be expected of someone as ego-centric as you have proved yourself to be. I may not be slick, but you aren't any sort of authority on basically anything, either. That's where we are similar. The difference between us is this: I'm not trying to be slick.

Although I sincerely doubt that you aren't trying to be slick, whatever you're trying to do has the consequence -- whether intended or unintended -- of rendering you, in my opinion, a complete and utter bore. I don't say so to be impolite or insulting. The simply fact of the matter is that I, for all my previously stated reasons, have come to find discourse with you a wearisome ordeal. And, as far as I'm concerned, whether you are in fact a complete and utter bore is of little import. Perceptions are oftentimes more important than the reality and, unfortunately, I have come to perceive you as a bore. Therefore, I've no doubt that you will not be hard-pressed to understand my disinclination towards further discourse with you and the weariness I invariable suffer as a result of that discourse.

All that being now said, if you don't want to further trade posts with me, I'll perfectly understand that and, rest assured, will in no way see that that as any sort of negative reflection upon you.

 

[Emergent]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: rather than focus on the more obviously intended "action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously," you wanna latch on to "maneuver," the one word dangling off the end of the definition, as if that would be the part I most intended.

Look here, Slick, you ain't slick. Not by a long shot. Trust me on that.

I don't where or on who you were able to try that feeble-minded nonsense and actually succeed with the result that it has apparently now become a force of habit for you, but here's the bad news: that ain't gonna work with everyone -- not anyone with an IQ higher than the number of their fingers and toes.

And here's more bad news for you: it makes you a complete and utter bore.

You seem to be confusing my refusal to let someone else dictate the terms of the debate with sloppy rhetorics (that's you) with "a force of habit" of my own, and that would be expected of someone as ego-centric as you have proved yourself to be. I may not be slick, but you aren't any sort of authority on basically anything, either. That's where we are similar. The difference between us is this: I'm not trying to be slick.

Although I sincerely doubt that you aren't trying to be slick, whatever you're trying to do has the consequence -- whether intended or unintended -- of rendering you, in my opinion, a complete and utter bore. I don't say so to be impolite or insulting. The simply fact of the matter is that I, for all my previously stated reasons, have come to find discourse with you a wearisome ordeal. And, as far as I'm concerned, whether you are in fact a complete and utter bore is of little import. Perceptions are oftentimes more important than the reality and, unfortunately, I have come to perceive you as a bore. Therefore, I've no doubt that you will not be hard-pressed to understand my disclination towards further discourse with you and the weariness I invariable suffer as a result of that discourse.

All that being now said, if you don't want to further trade posts with me, I'll perfectly understand that and, rest assured, will in no way see that that as any sort of negative reflection upon you.

As an emotional appeal, based solely on your feelings, there is really nothing said here that requires or deserves a response. That said, yes, I understand that you are disinclined to like people who call out your petty bullshit for what it is: some random guy on the internet's attempt at making himself feel relevant, or important, or whatever. I bet that does get wearisome. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop, though, at least not as long as you keep spewing your particular brand of vitriol in places I happen to visit.

 

[JDKJ]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about: rather than focus on the more obviously intended "action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously," you wanna latch on to "maneuver," the one word dangling off the end of the definition, as if that would be the part I most intended.

Look here, Slick, you ain't slick. Not by a long shot. Trust me on that.

I don't where or on who you were able to try that feeble-minded nonsense and actually succeed with the result that it has apparently now become a force of habit for you, but here's the bad news: that ain't gonna work with everyone -- not anyone with an IQ higher than the number of their fingers and toes.

And here's more bad news for you: it makes you a complete and utter bore.

You seem to be confusing my refusal to let someone else dictate the terms of the debate with sloppy rhetorics (that's you) with "a force of habit" of my own, and that would be expected of someone as ego-centric as you have proved yourself to be. I may not be slick, but you aren't any sort of authority on basically anything, either. That's where we are similar. The difference between us is this: I'm not trying to be slick.

Although I sincerely doubt that you aren't trying to be slick, whatever you're trying to do has the consequence -- whether intended or unintended -- of rendering you, in my opinion, a complete and utter bore. I don't say so to be impolite or insulting. The simply fact of the matter is that I, for all my previously stated reasons, have come to find discourse with you a wearisome ordeal. And, as far as I'm concerned, whether you are in fact a complete and utter bore is of little import. Perceptions are oftentimes more important than the reality and, unfortunately, I have come to perceive you as a bore. Therefore, I've no doubt that you will not be hard-pressed to understand my disclination towards further discourse with you and the weariness I invariable suffer as a result of that discourse.

All that being now said, if you don't want to further trade posts with me, I'll perfectly understand that and, rest assured, will in no way see that that as any sort of negative reflection upon you.

As an emotional appeal, based solely on your feelings, there is really nothing said here that requires or deserves a response. That said, yes, I understand that you are disinclined to like people who call out your petty bullshit for what it is: some random guy on the internet's attempt at making himself feel relevant, or important, or whatever. I bet that does get wearisome. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop, though, at least not as long as you keep spewing your particular brand of vitriol in places I happen to visit.

Lord, I was hoping that "there is really nothing said here that requires or deserves a response" would have, in fact, truly been the case. So much for hopes.

As I previously said, you are a victim of you own force of habit. You can no more cease your behavior than a leopard can change its spots. If I had a soft spot in my heart, I'd actually feel pity for you but, unfortunately, my heart's rock-hard (too much fried food).

 

[major28]

im calling it rite now "geohot" the movie. it will pretty much be the same thing as the facebook movie except no one will see it

 

[Emergent]

As I previously said, you are a victim of you own force of habit. You can no more cease your behavior than a leopard can change its spots. If I had a soft spot in my heart, I'd actually feel pity for you but, unfortunately, my heart's rock-hard (too much fried food).

I don't think you're qualified to know what my habits are, at least, not without stretching the meaning of the word "habit" beyond any useful definition. The rest is just more of your incessant emotional appeals. They aren't really that important.

 

[JDKJ]

As I previously said, you are a victim of you own force of habit. You can no more cease your behavior than a leopard can change its spots. If I had a soft spot in my heart, I'd actually feel pity for you but, unfortunately, my heart's rock-hard (too much fried food).

I don't think you're qualified to know what my habits are, at least, not without stretching the meaning of the word "habit" beyond any useful definition. The rest is just more of your incessant emotional appeals. They aren't really that important.

You mean beyond my receipt of the skatey-eight million posts in which you quote me and then exhibit over and over and over and over and over and over again the same habitual conduct?

hab·it n. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition.

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

 

[Emergent]

You mean beyond my receipt of the skatey-eight million posts in which you quote me and then exhibit over and over and over and over and over and over again the same habitual conduct?

hab·it n. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition.

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

The only habit I've displayed so far with you is patience - and you're trying it on purpose, for no real apparent reason except maybe some perverse sort of self-satisfaction.

 

[JDKJ]

You mean beyond my receipt of the skatey-eight million posts in which you quote me and then exhibit over and over and over and over and over and over again the same habitual conduct?

hab·it n. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition.

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

The only habit I've displayed so far with you is patience - and you're trying it on purpose, for no real apparent reason except maybe some perverse sort of self-satisfaction.

You got a lotta nerve.

I made clear to you, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms, that I'm not interested in discourse with you and, as politely as polite could have been, invited you to piss off and just leave me alone, but you ignored me and declined the invitation and, instead, insisted that you won't piss off and will continue jockin' me. And now you wanna talk about your patience been tried? If you weren't in it to have your patience tried, then why didn't you just piss off and leave me alone as invited? Yeah, I know, you're Batman in his cape protecting the hallowed halls of the Escapist's forums from my vitriol (while, ironically, you're also in the process turning the hallowed halls of the Escapist's forums into your personal battlefield upon which to wage your personal vendetta against me and, coincidentally, co-opting a thread that has nothing to do with either me or you and everything to do with George Hotz). Fine. Be Batman, if you so choose. But then you're left no room in which to fairly complain when I choose to be the Joker. That's on you. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Perhaps this a good time for me to refresh my invitation that you piss off and leave me alone?

 

[Emergent]

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.

 

[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?

 

[health-bar]

There once was a Great King named Sony. Sony was beloved by all his people, and his kingdom was safe from harm.
But one day king Sony found out that Marauders* had been using the roads he had built in the OtherOS Forest to raid shipments passing through the kingdom. Outraged, king Sony outlawed the use of the roads. But the roads in otherOS forest were held dearly to the hearts of the citizens as they used them to get useful goods in the northern sea, and so they cursed King Sony's name for his rash actions. King Sony was displeased, but happy his kingdom was secure.

One day, an adventurer name George Hotz came across a trail leading around The old roads. He realized that the King could not outlaw a trail and so he explored it and found it lead to the bountiful Northern sea.. The people could finally have access to the northern sea again! He ran back and told everyone in the kingdom of his great discovery. Unfortunately, the marauders also heard of the trail, now they could regain access to the kingdom...

King Sony heard of George's discovery and was outraged. The marauders would once again plauge the land. He sent his guard to arrest George, and George pleaded to the people for aid. King Sony locked up George but several villages begged for his release. On a dark night, George emerged from the dungeons, the people asked why the King let him go, but he did not answer them. The king never spoke of the event either. But George still bore a hatred towards the King who had persecuted him, and so he roamed from village to village preaching how the villagers should be able to use whatever roads they wished and that the King was a tyrant.

Meanwhile, the King rode to the trail to defend the northern borders from an oncoming wave of bloodthirsty marauders.

*though the Mauraders were vicious in their pillaging, many were impoverished remnants of an old country that had fallen long ago. They simply were trying to scrounge a living In the harsh wilderness. However, the most vicious of their bands were of noble background. The members were just unwilling to pay for the goods, and so they stole them Instead.