Comments on: Who said TV-B-Gone users are 'snotty holier-than-thou types'?

Hint: It wasn't the 'New York Times.'

[gfallar]

That's hilarious, actually. The scathingness of the diatribe is severely diminished by the author's lack of civil vocabulary.

[zerdos]

It get's better. The inventor is an *******, but the user who shuts off TV's is a dick. So they are calling their own prankster a dick :-)

[zerdos]

Ohh, that ***** was cute. I suppose you had to apply some code to allow the word to appear in its full glory in your post ...

[rafe]

Wait, does our comment system convert cursewords to ****'s? I honestly didn't know. I will look into this double standard.

[pkscout]

I quit reading Gizmodo quite some time ago. I got tired of all their childish attempts to get attention. I see not much has changed in the last 18 months or so. The best way to deal with the children is to ignore them. They'll get bored eventually and move on to something else.

[acovert]

I think it's worth pointing out that none of the current Gizmodo staff was with the site in 2004. Your argument about the inconsistency between the treatment TV-B-Gone then and now has zero validity.

[kabong]

While that may be worth noting, the argument does hold water because as a or publication (if you want to call it that) it doesn't matter who wrote it. It was put out there under Gizmodo's banner and they take the credit, good or otherwise.

[alfrednonymous]

@acovert

Maybe, Adrian, it's because the hacks at Gawker can't hold down a job. Further reading:

http://gawkerdeathwatch.blogspot.com/

[sheywood]

Great interview about this on G4 TV tonight, Rafe!

This situation reminds me of one that involved a bunch of decals in Manhattan. Guess the "any press is good" school of thought is alive and well at Gizmodo.

[make_or_break]

Rafe: for someone who's supposedly TIRED of this sad, sordid (but funny) affair, you sure do seem to post about it (A LOT).

Gizmodo will pay a price for their insolence. Companies who were there certainly won't forget, even if they weren't directly affected. They're going to think twice about dropping scuttlebutt and early 411 to them. They're going to reconsider supplying samples to the so-called "professionals" of the site. And for damned sure, organizers are going to be a lot more hesitant in allowing Gizmodo access to their events.

I've read plenty of posts supporting Gizmodo over this prank. Personally I think its no different than any other sort of petty vandalism and it's not something that should be condoned at ANY level, no matter how humorous it was. Certainly bragging about it by posting a video doesn't weaken the case. Every get the feeling Lam and Co. are a bit like bored teens driving around with a paintball gun, looking for anyone to gun down?

For Gizmodo to still call themselves justifiably righteous over this is such a sorry joke that proves that Lam and Gizmodo really doesn't have a sense of humor, after all. Then again, they're probably doing all this pathetic damage control as a limp-wristed attempt to try to diminish the ammunition that the drooling corporate lawyers for all these harmed vendors are currently arming themselves with.

dude GET OVER IT and yourself. trying to take this holier-than-thou approach is ridiculous, it was a joke (albeit a bad one). it was something that could have been easily prevented by the presenters (companies with more money than i'll ever see in my life). if you think it will have ANY EFFECT on whether or not these companies continue to use CES in the future as a venue for previewing their products, you're crazy.

[RenoDavid]

This is actually more funny than the original prank. Losers....