4 ms·
Your reply reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Judge Snyder lets Bart out of any kind of personal responsibility under the "Boys will be boys" rule. I'm s
by angryasian 13y ago
Your reply reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Judge Snyder lets Bart out of any kind of personal responsibility under the "Boys will be boys" rule. I'm sorry but I don't agree. People should be held responsible for their actions and perform their job duties to what is expected. This child's parent should absolutely be held responsible. We live in a society that wants to take no responsibly and sue everyone and everything for our own stupidity.
tldr: take responsibility for your own actions. Parent should have never given a secret device to a child.
- chris_mahan 13y agoThen why insult the kid?
- gph 13y agoWhat insult? Is there more to the story than the article is letting on? Because there is nothing in that article even close to an insult.
- randallsquared 13y agoThe kid did nothing wrong (unless he stole the phone, obviously). Even in the article it says "the person who will be held accountable will ostensibly be the party who signed an NDA to get the handset, not Jamkatel himself", which is exactly the way it should be handled. It's not clear that the kid is in trouble at all.
- victorhooi 13y agoErr, no, the kids seems like a sneaky little ratbag who tried to weasel his way out when he realise he'd done the wrong thing. First, he tried to claim is was fake. Then he said he didn't post the video. Then he claims his parents work for HTC. Sure, HTC's wording is probably not exactly kid gloves, but it sounds like - we're going to sue your sorry a*se to get our stolen property back.
- randallsquared 13y ago> sneaky little ratbag Is that the phrase we're using for "scared teenager" these days?