Comments on: Sony ‘deceived buyers’

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 22 May 2006 20:55:16 +0000

I FOURTH it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

: D: !ROTFLMFAO!

EXTREMLY well stated!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 22 May 2006 11:55:46 +0000

I third it, bravo !

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 22 May 2006 05:23:24 +0000

I second that. Nicely put

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 21 May 2006 14:32:31 +0000

Definition of Sony: to be cheap, a fake, defective, without merit, over hype & under deliver, to cheat or mislead, to stink of financial ruin, to lack credibility.

It is impossible for Sony to sue anyone for defamation should they publicly call the company & it’s management as being âLiars & cheats without conscienceâ.

It is widely considered to be good sport to hunt Sony. To take from Sony without paying is indeed good fun. Cheating Sony is often regarded as being a service to the public.

People who hack or break Sony employed security measures are regarded as heros. People who aid in distributing material taken from Sony are not regarded as “thieves”, in fact they are often held in high esteem by the greater community.

Sony appears as shit, it smells like shit, it tastes like shit, it is therefore shit; and should be treated as such.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 21 May 2006 07:30:00 +0000

So does that mean filesharers can use the same excuse? “Oh, we were just taking advantage of a marketing opportunity.”

And bigbiz wonders why noone wuvs them anymore. Or believe a word that the spindoctors spew everywhere.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 21 May 2006 00:32:23 +0000

nuff said