Duke4.net Forums: Randy's Pitchford Corner - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Randy's Pitchford Corner  "Previously "Randy's Bonus and...Child Porn?!""

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #31

View PostFox, on 15 January 2019 - 06:28 AM, said:

Why would anyone word it like this? He's watching something totally legal, but also suggests that he's close to being a pedophile for no reason.

That's how things right on the border of legal permissibility are marketed. Like gas station fake weed that will give you brain damage.
2

User is online   Lunick 

  • Snazzy Ex Tazzy

#32

Let's keep this topic about Randy and his actions, thanks
0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#33



I agree with supmatto. He has sources within Gearbox and has been right with various leaked info about Borderlands 3 for quite some time now. One of the things he says in this vid is that Gearbox recorded all of its parties and can show that they were normal parties. Of course that won't satisfy everyone, but as they always say, you can't prove a negative. Here's the thing, though: in an age where a popular star can be instantly fired for a single tweet, you can best believe that if there was any credible evidence against Randy on the more explosive claims against him, then he would be out on his ass (even though, as already pointed out, those explosive claims are not legally at issue anyway; they were thrown in as background hearsay in the lawsuit).

So yeah, I'm defending him, as I would anyone who is accused of bad things for which no credible evidence has been given. That's not to say that there was no breach of contract by Randy as claimed by Callender, or vice versa -- I'm only talking about the dirty stuff that people are focusing on. The courts will decide this and Borderlands 3 will be released in 2019 regardless.
5

User is offline   Mark 

  • Honored Donor

#34

A voice of reason?????? How did that get allowed in this thread? :lol:
0

User is offline   Forge 

#35

View PostForge, on 14 January 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

Doesn't matter. Two rich douche-bags having a legal battle over money. Somebody will get paid, and that's about all that's going to happen.

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

#36

View PostTrooper Dan, on 17 January 2019 - 01:45 PM, said:

That's not to say that there was no breach of contract by Randy as claimed by Callender, or vice versa -- I'm only talking about the dirty stuff that people are focusing on.

Is anyone really focusing on that though? I mean it's good to have a laugh on that stuff and it sure is juicier but the real deal here is that 12 million bonus.

As for the parties: multiple people has come forward who were guests on those parties and everyone denied weird shit happening there + I tend to believe Randy's explanation on the "USB porn" simply because it sounds too stupid to be false. :D
0

User is offline   Taamalus 

#37

So far, it plays like a very vicious divorce battle.
My bets are with Callender.
The last thing you want to do is to sue a lawyer.
We'll have to wait on who wins. :)

This post has been edited by Hank: 17 January 2019 - 05:58 PM

0

User is offline   Jim Rockford 

  • Banned on Rigel

#38

View PostTrooper Dan, on 17 January 2019 - 01:45 PM, said:

in an age where a popular star can be instantly fired for a single tweet, you can best believe that if there was any credible evidence against Randy on the more explosive claims against him, then he would be out on his ass (even though, as already pointed out, those explosive claims are not legally at issue anyway; they were thrown in as background hearsay in the lawsuit).

Yeah, um no because Steven Spielberg impaled Heather O'Rourke on his cock and no one seems to care.

This post has been edited by Jimmy 100MPH: 17 January 2019 - 10:12 PM

2

User is offline   leilei 

#39

All I can say is the first thing that came to mind when the news first broke out, was that part in the DNF intro/prologue...
0

#40

View Postleilei, on 18 January 2019 - 06:29 PM, said:

All I can say is the first thing that came to mind when the news first broke out, was that part in the DNF intro/prologue...


One thing I never saw anyone address was if the porn on the USB was recorded footage from a cam website, would Randy (or anyone, for that matter) be legally responsible if the performer turned out to be underage?

This incident might be the flag that gets planted on top of the mountain of evidence that Randy is a giant douche, but I think that's where it begins and ends, unless more evidence comes to light.

This post has been edited by cosmonautcowboy: 19 January 2019 - 10:13 AM

0

User is offline   Jim Rockford 

  • Banned on Rigel

#41

Yes. Possession of child pornography is illegal. "I didn't know." isn't a valid defense.
1

User is offline   Person of Color 

  • Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland

#42

"Underage?! B...but ossifer! I...I thought she had a glandular problem!"



This post has been edited by Person of Color: 20 January 2019 - 02:29 AM

0

#43

View PostJimmy 100MPH, on 19 January 2019 - 11:37 AM, said:

Yes. Possession of child pornography is illegal. "I didn't know." isn't a valid defense.


I get that, but I just wondered how far due diligence on the part of the host/producer goes. For example, when Traci Lords turned out to be underage, they didn't round up everyone that had bought that stuff and toss them in jail, did they? Granted, that was an eternity ago in terms of them being actually able to find people who had bought it, unlike today. But it was the only example that came to mind.

Anyhow, given that there's been no further reports on this, I'm guessing it will all blow over and Randy will keep being Randy.

This post has been edited by cosmonautcowboy: 20 January 2019 - 10:14 AM

0

User is offline   Forge 

#44

View Postcosmonautcowboy, on 20 January 2019 - 10:14 AM, said:

Traci Lords

wow, you're old if you get that reference.

https://i.redd.it/9ste4ttgk1b21.jpg
0

User is offline   Jim Rockford 

  • Banned on Rigel

#45

Possessing the Traci Lords videos are illegal, and yes, if they were found in your possession you could be charged. It was mostly selectively non-enforced then and now, but is still illegal according to the law.
0

User is offline   Taamalus 

#46

I think, a civil suit only needs to show a pattern of misconduct, the term is 'preponderance of the evidence.'
https://www.law.corn...of_the_evidence

Randy's pod cast (can't find my post here?) + the video was stored with other classified documents, lean towards the probability, it may have been 'under aged porn.
0

#47

View PostForge, on 20 January 2019 - 10:31 AM, said:

wow, you're old if you get that reference.


Hey, I'm only 37! Is that old now?

View PostJimmy 100MPH, on 20 January 2019 - 11:17 AM, said:

Possessing the Traci Lords videos are illegal, and yes, if they were found in your possession you could be charged. It was mostly selectively non-enforced then and now, but is still illegal according to the law.


Assuming he's guilty, it's nice to know that he wouldn't be able to weasel his way out of it on that technicality, then.
0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#48

View PostHank, on 20 January 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

I think, a civil suit only needs to show a pattern of misconduct, the term is 'preponderance of the evidence.'
https://www.law.corn...of_the_evidence

Randy's pod cast (can't find my post here?) + the video was stored with other classified documents, lean towards the probability, it may have been 'under aged porn.


But his possession of the "under aged porn" is not one of the claims in the suit for which damages are being sought. It's not something being litigated at all. It's simply asserted as background. As such, no evidence is provided, and none is needed -- since it's not being litigated.

If he were charged with that, then that would be a whole other kettle of fish. Presumably the suit would have to be brought forward by the injured party, which would be the camgirl featured in the porn. The lawyer suing Randy is certainly not the injured party. Of course it's possible for the state to charge him, but that would be a criminal case and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence would apply.

Also note that civil suits are by definition not criminal cases -- that's what makes it possible for the lower standard of evidence to apply. What's at stake in a civil case is money for damages, not jail time or other legal penalties. Possession of child porn is not normally something that is handled in a civil suit.
2

User is offline   Taamalus 

#49

^ maybe my post was too short? Where did I argue against your assertions?

I simply insinuated a 'pattern of misconduct' not the actual charges of the entire case. :)
0

User is offline   Forge 

#50

What did one douchbag say to the other douchebag?

"I look at child porn, so you most likely do too."

The lawyer is projecting.

He's probably bitter because Randy got him drunk on champagne and tricked him into giving Randy a hummer.


Accusing Randy of having childporn without proof is a shit tactic and tells me the guy is grasping at straws because his case has no legs to stand on.

This post has been edited by Forge: 21 January 2019 - 07:05 PM

1

User is offline   Taamalus 

#51

View PostForge, on 21 January 2019 - 07:03 PM, said:

Accusing Randy of having childporn without proof is a shit tactic and tells me the guy is grasping at straws because his case has no legs to stand on.

I thought so too, until I listened to Randy's pod cast, a couple more times.
If Callender is grasping at straws, he won that round the moment Randy open his mouth in public.
Or maybe Callender actually knows how to play Randy.

As I wrote before: Speech is silver, silence is gold. :)
1

User is offline   Forge 

#52

View PostHank, on 21 January 2019 - 07:39 PM, said:

I thought so too, until I listened to Randy's pod cast, a couple more times.
If Callender is grasping at straws, he won that round the moment Randy open his mouth in public.
Or maybe Callender actually knows how to play Randy.

As I wrote before: Speech is silver, silence is gold. :)

I never claimed Randy was smart, but being a dumbass doesn't mean he's guilty (of the pedo shit).

I'm still not totally convinced he's innocent of basically cooking the books and shifting money around - he is a greedy, self-serving asshole.
If his accuser has to resort to #metoo type tactics though, I'm leaning more in favor of Randy - as much as I can't stand his pompous ass.

This post has been edited by Forge: 21 January 2019 - 09:47 PM

1

User is offline   Kathy 

#53

Once again, it's not child porn. The thread starter should be ashamed to toss around it like that. Especially when underage part is not even being the point of the suit.
1

#54

View PostFox, on 15 January 2019 - 06:28 AM, said:

Why would anyone word it like this? He's watching something totally legal, but also suggests that he's close to being a pedophile for no reason.

I have two hypotheses. Either:
1) the author of the article is an incel who wants to fuck 18-year-olds but gets denied every time, so he is expressing sour grapes
or
2) the author of the article is one of those Georgefags who idolize the 2001 version of DNF and blame Randy for everything, so he tries to smear Randy's reputation as a retarded attempt at payback.

It could even be both.

This post has been edited by Altered Reality: 25 January 2019 - 04:22 PM

0

User is offline   Taamalus 

#55

View PostAltered Reality, on 25 January 2019 - 04:21 PM, said:

I have two hypotheses. Either:
1) the author of the article is an incel who wants to fuck 18-year-olds but gets denied every time, so he is expressing sour grapes
or
2) the author of the article is one of those Georgefags who idolize the 2001 version of DNF and blame Randy for everything, so he tries to smear Randy's reputation as a retarded attempt at payback.

It could even be both.

Neither. The author quoted Pitchford verbatim.
p.s. I wont re-quote something which was redirected to the 'Outhouse' - simply search for Kotako/Hank :P , in it
0

User is offline   Jim Rockford 

  • Banned on Rigel

#56

No one knows if it's a legal video. Randy allegedly says it's legal. Callender allegedly said it wasn't legal. What makes it sketchy is that Randy tried to run damage control on the nature of the video before anyone accused him of watching CP.

This post has been edited by Jimmy 100MPH: 27 January 2019 - 12:27 AM

0

#57

I don't think making anew forum is agood idea so I just post this here


This post has been edited by Duke Legacy: 02 May 2019 - 05:25 AM

0

User is offline   Lazy Dog 

#58

View PostDuke Legacy, on 02 May 2019 - 04:36 AM, said:

I don't think making anew forum is agood idea so I just post this here


why am i not surprised? oh wait, it's Randy.

This post has been edited by Lazy Dog: 02 May 2019 - 07:38 AM

1

#59

Randy Fucking Bitchford
2

User is offline   NightFright 

  • The Truth is in here

#60

Randy Dandy Shmendy.
2

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Fury! ;) © 2019 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options