Confusing paragrah from Engadget

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

pcutilisateur@gmail.com - 17 Nov 2006 20:50 GMT

I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
paragraph.

"Update: While not actually criminal, last night's award for cruel and
unusual went to PC Gamer, who were on hand in SF to try to convince a
card-carrying line-waiting PS3 fanboy to swear off Sony forever. In
exchange for a $7,500 Falcon Northwest PC rig, dude had to sign a
legally binding contract to not purchase or ever own a PS3, under pain
of death paying back $7,500. Some guy named Neil, who'd been waiting
for 40 hours, signed his life away -- pic after the break."

URL:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/ps3-crime-spree-part-ii-fall-of-man/

Reply to this Message

mb - 17 Nov 2006 21:20 GMT

> I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
> paragraph.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> of death paying back $7,500. Some guy named Neil, who'd been waiting
> for 40 hours, signed his life away -- pic after the break."

- PC Gamer dudes came to SF.
- They gave $ 7,500 worth of Falcon Northwest PC equipment to a guy.
- That guy was a heavy PS3 fan.
- In order to get the free equipment he had to sign a contract.
- The contract said that he would not buy (or otherwise own) a PS3,
never again in his whole life.
If he did, he would have to cough back the $7,500.
- This is not against the law, by the way.

- Another dude's name was Neil.
- He waited for 40 hours.
- Then he signed his life away.
- Don't touch that dial. We'll be back soon.

Reply to this Message

pcutilisateur@gmail.com - 17 Nov 2006 21:31 GMT

> > I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
> > paragraph.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> - Then he signed his life away.
> - Don't touch that dial. We'll be back soon.

Okay, so he went to buy PS3, and he didn't buy it because he is getting
other stuff? He is smart, here in Toronto some of them were trying to
kill eachother over it..

It happen other places too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEPdRPxR_i0

Reply to this Message

nancy13g@verizon.net - 17 Nov 2006 22:24 GMT

> Okay, so he went to buy PS3, and he didn't buy it because he is getting
> other stuff?

Right. He was waiting in line to buy one, but then the PC Gamer people
offered him a $7500 computer instead, if he would give up his plan of
buying the PS3 and promise never to buy one. He accepted their offer.

Reply to this Message

Jeffrey Turner - 18 Nov 2006 03:23 GMT

>>>I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
>>>paragraph.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> It happen other places too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEPdRPxR_i0

There was a shooting in Putnam, Connecticut.

--Jeff

Signature

Whenever morality is based on theology,
whenever right is made dependent on
divine authority, the most immoral,
unjust, infamous things can be
justified and established. --Ludwig Feuerbach

Reply to this Message

jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 17 Nov 2006 23:50 GMT

> > I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
> > paragraph.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > of death paying back $7,500. Some guy named Neil, who'd been waiting
> > for 40 hours, signed his life away -- pic after the break."

Thank you for quoting that magnificent example of horrible writing.

> - PC Gamer dudes came to SF.
> - They gave $ 7,500 worth of Falcon Northwest PC equipment to a guy.
> - That guy was a heavy PS3 fan.

Playstation fan. As I understand it, this refers to the release of the
Playstation 3, so the guy hadn't been able to try the PS3 yet, though
presumably he was hoping to be a big fan once he could.

> - In order to get the free equipment he had to sign a contract.
> - The contract said that he would not buy (or otherwise own) a PS3,
> never again in his whole life.

Or any Sony game machine? The article contradicts itself.

By the way, I'd say "ever again" there. For me, "never" is a forbidden
double negative rather than the slightly doubtful "He can never own
one, not if he wants to keep his $7,500" construction. I don't think I
can explain the difference right now--not if you want anything
coherent, anyway.

> If he did, he would have to cough back the $7,500.
> - This is not against the law, by the way.

But the writer of the article thinks it's unethical or unpleasant or
something ("cruel and unusual").

> - Another dude's name was Neil.

I'm pretty sure Neil is the dude who signed the contract not to own a
PS3 ("signed his life away").

> - He waited for 40 hours.
> - Then he signed his life away.
> - Don't touch that dial. We'll be back soon.

With a picture. But I don't get why news you read promises a picture
after the break.

Signature

Jerry Friedman

Reply to this Message

mb - 18 Nov 2006 04:34 GMT

...

> > - They gave $ 7,500 worth of Falcon Northwest PC equipment to a guy.
> > - That guy was a heavy PS3 fan.
>
> Playstation fan. As I understand it, this refers to the release of the
> Playstation 3, so the guy hadn't been able to try the PS3 yet, though
> presumably he was hoping to be a big fan once he could.

Thanks for the explanation. I take it this is a stand-alone game
computer or some such contraption, right?

> > - The contract said that he would not buy (or otherwise own) a PS3,
> > never again in his whole life.

> By the way, I'd say "ever again" there. For me, "never" is a forbidden
> double negative rather than the slightly doubtful "He can never own
> one, not if he wants to keep his $7,500" construction. I don't think I
> can explain the difference right now--not if you want anything
> coherent, anyway.

I think I know: You are a mainly oral-oriented person, so that a comma
just before the "never" is not likely to carry weight with you.

> > If he did, he would have to cough back the $7,500.
> > - This is not against the law, by the way.
>
> But the writer of the article thinks it's unethical or unpleasant or
> something ("cruel and unusual").

Not "but". Additionally.

Reply to this Message

Peter Duncanson - 18 Nov 2006 11:45 GMT

>> > I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
>> > paragraph.
>> >
>> > for 40 hours, signed his life away -- pic after the break."

>> - He waited for 40 hours.
>> - Then he signed his life away.
>> - Don't touch that dial. We'll be back soon.

No. This refers to the layout on the page.

>With a picture. But I don't get why news you read promises a picture
>after the break.

I understand the "break" is an advertisement break. The author was
expecting the article to be split into two parts with an advert in
between. However, no advert was inserted in the article when
published.

<Start of article (text and pictures)>
...
...
...
<Start of break>

Advertisement.

<End of break>
...
...
...
<End of article>

There is an example of an article split by an advert at:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1948250,00.html

Gates leads Microsoft's charm offensive in Europe

Innovation Day was both a showcase and a polite
way of asking Brussels to call off its antitrust
attack dogs

Jack Schofield
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Guardian
...
...
Article continues v[1]
_________________________________________________
[advert]
_________________________________________________
...
...
<end of article>

[1] Downward pointer.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message

Tony Cooper - 18 Nov 2006 13:01 GMT

>>> > I was reading the news about PS3, and I don't understand the following
>>> > paragraph.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>between. However, no advert was inserted in the article when
>published.

The author is emulating a newscast, so it might be that this line is
just part of that style. Local newscasters often say something like
"More on this story after the break" to keep the viewer tuned in.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

Confusing paragrah from Engadget