On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
> the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
> the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).
>
> It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
> misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
> continues to argue both these fallacies.
Hi Frank Slootweg,
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.
We know each other well where's no love lost between us, where I just want
to let you (& others) know I've _studied_ these unprepossessing apologists.
Their strange (but consistently repetitive) actions piqued my interest:
a. They _always_ take the case of Apple (as you see nospam doing now)
b. They brazenly deny what Apple does (or blame M$ for what Apple does)
c. They fabricate functionality they _wish_ Apple products have
While there are three major types of apologists, what's consistent about
their arguments is that they are so used to being among their own cultists,
that they have absolutely no adult strategies to deal with actual facts.
For example, nospam will literally change your words in his quote of what
you said, and then he'll respond to _those_ changed words. He's done this
so many hundreds of times that I have an entire thread of when he's done
that - simply because he has no skill for handling actual facts.
For another example, all the apologists, will simply deny facts outright,
where they do it differently depending on the type. For example, Type I
apologists (nospam being the canonical member) will claim "he's told you
already", or just "nope" without calling all facts "lies by liars" which
the Type III apologists do. He'll deny any fact he simply doesn't like.
And yet, unlike the other types of apologists, nospam actually _knows_ the
facts, which is why his credibility is rather high for an apologists at
about the same result as a dumb random coin toss outcome.
The three types are clearly distinct, even as they're all strange people:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) will always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
o Type II (e.g., sms) are normal people who simply aren't factual minded.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are well into Quadrant 1 of Dunning-Kruger.
Notice what sets apart nospam from the other two despicable types is that
he doesn't believe a word he, himself, says, whereas the other two types
literally believe what they say (where the Type II are simply ignorant
people who aren't used to facts, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ thinks the
Qualcomm royalties went down per iPhone!)... but it's the Type III (e.g.,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) who are the most
petrifying since they truly believe the strange things they claim.
By way of contrast with nospam, the Type III apologist are clearly of very
low IQ, whereas nospam has only a slightly below normal IQ (AFAICT), where
the fact he _understands_ the facts puts him in the normal range but the
fact he has no methods to deal with facts shows he's below normal in IQ.
The Type II apologists, as far as I can tell, have a normal range of IQ
(e.g., Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, Savageduck, Steve Scharf, et al.),
where their flaws are simply that facts aren't something they're used to
dealing with (it's likely zero of them were science or engineering majors,
for example, but more likely they couldn't handle any factually rigorous
field of endeavor, e.g., Steve is the mayor of Cupertino, which doesn't
require factual skills - but which requires political acumen instead).
One thing that distinguishes apologists is their purpose on denying facts:
o Type I simply defend Apple and blame Microsoft/Google for Apple faults.
o Type II simply believe the MARKETING but otherwise are normal people.
o Type III are viscous hate-filled horribly unprepossessing bullies.
One trait both Type I and Type III apologists share is that they're easily
shown to be sadistic, which has been proven many times, where they
sadistically send innocent users on wild-goose chases simply because they
incessantly claim functionality that simply never existed.
It's shocking, actually, how horribly sadistic nospam is when he does that.
o He's a completely unprepossessing human being - devoid of purposefully
helpful advice - as he NEVER has any other goal but to push Apple's
marketing message on Usenet. He's NEVER purposefully helpful. Ever.
In short, nospam is, IMHO, a truly despicable human being, devoid of
purposefully helpful intent, honor, credibility, or compassion.
But he's not stupid! He's of only slightly below normal intelligence.
o He is the way he is because he _chooses_ to be despicable.
Unlike Type III and Type II apologists, who don't know any better.
o This nospam actually _knows_ he's despicable; he simply doesn't care.
In summary, all of the apologists deny what normal people know to be facts.
o Type I know the facts, but they'll support Apple at all costs
Hence, most Usenet threads they participate in are _filled_ with their
garbage, such that some threads are 99% them simply denying what nobody
normal would ever deny.
IMHO, these despicable people like nospam are what ruins Usenet.
o They don't have a single purposefully helpful bone in their bodies.
Happened just this week, for example, fully documented here:
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mQsBECSbICw>
--
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.