What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

[Arlen Holder]

What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the typical iOS
poster on this newsgroup?

The question is a psychological one where the Apple Apologists have, for
decades, almost all exhibited the following common traits which have caused
endless discussions because Apple Apologists don't seem to like facts.

Here are the nine commonly exhibited traits of *all* the Apple Apologists:
* They're never purposefully helpful whenever they don't like the question
* They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary iOS functionality
* They then exclaim that they told us many times how to do it! :)
* They always "just guess" where their credibility is worthless
* They almost never back up their statements with any referenced facts
* They incessantly play silly childish word games when faced with facts
* They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
* Then they respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
* They consistently blame Android for the lack of functionality on iOS

What's psychologically interesting is that in this post, Savageduck yet
again blames Android for an OP's inability to do what he wants using iOS!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ>

The OP of that thread concurred, that it was Android's fault that he
couldn't copy an app from one iOS device to another!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7Qqc3f1dCAAJ>

Meanwhile, Jolly Roger yet again wholly fabricated imaginary iOS
functionality for the poor OP to attempt to follow (and fail), since both
nospam and Jolly Roger incessantly fabricate iOS functionality that just
doesn't exist, whenever they see a technical question that they don't like.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/SGhljjBYCAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/VqzlcQ0hCAAJ>

When the OP tried Jolly Roger's fabricated method, is it any surprise it
failed?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/C78-NjwnCAAJ>

NOTE: Often Jolly Roger responds with hate-filled fifth-grade vitriol when
confronted with facts, but in this particular test thread, he remained calm
so we won't add that to the common traits.

Of course, nospam not only fabricates imaginary iOS functionality:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/Cf3bIIcQCAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/1YHAnJEnCAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/jsxtlTchCAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/3naulH4cCAAJ>
But nospam also claims that he's told us how to do (what can't be done)
many times, and we just won't listen to him.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/yk6sP4I2CAAJ>
And even better, nospam claims that people have been successful with their
imaginary iOS functioanlity!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/HZYE3iscCAAJ>

And yet, I told the OP it can't be done (because it can't be done).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7rHAL_QXCAAJ>

And so did sms, who is another credible poster on the iOS newsgroups who is
almost never wrong simply because he speaks facts. (Facts are funny that
way.)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/u21p0MMaCAAJ>

Meanwhile, David Empson, the most knowedgeable and credible poster on the
iOs newsgroups by far, backed up what both sms and I said:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/z3kVVoc-CAAJ>

Hence, the question is a psychological one where the Apple Apologists have,
for decades, almost all exhibited the following common traits:
* They're never purposefully helpful whenever they don't like the question
* They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary iOS functionality
* They then exclaim that they told us many times how to do it! :)
* They always "just guess" where their credibility is worthless
* They almost never back up their statements with any referenced facts
* They incessantly play silly childish word games when faced with facts
* They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
* Then they respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
* They consistently blame Android for the lack of functionality on iOS

Are those the common psychological traits of all the Apple Apologists?

[Savageduck]

On Jul 22, 2018, Arlen Holder wrote
(in article <pj389p$nd6$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

>
> What's psychologically interesting is that in this post, Savageduck yet
> again blames Android for an OP's inability to do what he wants using iOS!
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ>

...and you start with a lie. Where in my single post to that thread did I
blame Android for anything?

If you read, and comprehend my only post in that thread you will see that I
did not blame Android, or any OS for the OP’s problem. I did indicate that
your intrusion into the thread was yet another of your Android diatribes
which did nothing to solve the OP’s problem since he was only using iOS
devices.

Read it again:

"The OP(Wade Garrett) gave up when you butted in and started waxing on with
regard to Android. Since the OP asked his question with reference to getting
a copy of an app from his iPad(iOS not Android) to his iPad Mini (iOS not
Android),your contribution was irrelevant to this thread, and only started
your usual flame war involving the usual suspects.

He then returned to the thread to respond to JR’s suggestion, which was
unsuccessful. Since the app was a solitaire game, he decided to choose one of
the multitude of solitaire games free, or fee, available in the App Store.
Problem solved for this particular OP."

>
> The OP of that thread concurred, that it was Android's fault that he
> couldn't copy an app from one iOS device to another!
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/7Qqc3f1dCAAJ>

Another lie. The OP said no such thing. All he did was respond to my post,
and said the following:

"Yup, that precisely sums it up!"

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Arlen Holder]

On 22 Jul 2018 18:29:20 GMT, Savageduck wrote:

> which did nothing to solve the OP┬ problem since he was only using iOS
> devices.

Hi Savageduck,

Let's be adults please.

You may be used to conversing with less logical and less intelligent
people, so what you just made up in your post may work with iOS gullible's,
but it doesn't work with well-educated people because all your facts are
dead wrong - and easily proven to be so.

Meanwhile, I only speak fact.
And I reference those facts.
So I'm almost never wrong (facts are funny that way).

You blamed my posts (which were all 100% factual and correct) for the OP's
inability to do what is actually impossible to do on iOS (and the OP
concurred with you).

Bear in mind that the first person to tell the OP the truth was me, and the
second person to tell the OP the truth was sms, and the third person to
tell the OP the truth was David Empson.

If Jolly Roger or nospam didn't incessantly fabricate their imaginary iOS
functionality, the OP would have had those three valid factual responses as
his answer.

As it was, nospam and Jolly Roger *repeatedly* fabricated imaginary iOS
functionality such that the OP tried and failed and then simiply said
following their advice was "too complicated" (since none of it stood a
chance of working since it was all just made up).

Meanwhile, while you deprecate the functionality discussions that I
provided, you ignore that you yourself posted completely unrelated battery
backup information to that thread, all the while you deprecate the
functional information I posted.

> If you read, and comprehend my only post in that thread

What's amazing is that you posted *multieple times* in that thread, where
you already forgot that you posted this:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/gPeVojoiCAAJ>
which talks about completely unrealated sandisk products.

And then you posted this, also completely unrelated issue:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/62UPEo0iCAAJ>

And then this completely unrelated issue:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/0quzhQAnCAAJ>

Before you then posted this statment that my facts caused iOS to not be
able to do what DAvid Empson, me, and sms already told the OP that iOS
can't do.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ>

*The fact is you provided exactly 0 facts to help the OP solve the problem!*
*The fact is you posted completely unrelated drivel about batteries.*
*The fact is you then blamed my factual posts, for the OP's failures.*

Those are the facts.

[John McWilliams]

On 7/22/18 PDT 7:01 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2018 18:29:20 GMT, Savageduck wrote:
>

>> which did nothing to solve the OP¢s problem since he was only using iOS

>> devices.
>
> Hi Savageduck,
>
> Let's be adults please.
>

That's hilarious considering the source!

[Savageduck]

On Jul 22, 2018, Arlen Holder wrote

(in article <pj3csu$uj6$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On 22 Jul 2018 18:29:20 GMT, Savageduck wrote:
>

> > which did nothing to solve the OP¢s problem since he was only using iOS

> > devices.
>
> Hi Savageduck,
>
> Let's be adults please.
>
> You may be used to conversing with less logical and less intelligent
> people, so what you just made up in your post may work with iOS gullible's,
> but it doesn't work with well-educated people because all your facts are
> dead wrong - and easily proven to be so.
>
> Meanwhile, I only speak fact.
> And I reference those facts.
> So I'm almost never wrong (facts are funny that way).

“Almost never wrong” an interseting position to take.

>
> You blamed my posts (which were all 100% factual and correct) for the OP's
> inability to do what is actually impossible to do on iOS (and the OP
> concurred with you).

I did not blame you or your posts for anything other than their irrelevance
to the OP’s iOS problem. He did not need to hear about the wonders of
Android.

>
> Bear in mind that the first person to tell the OP the truth was me, and the
> second person to tell the OP the truth was sms, and the third person to
> tell the OP the truth was David Empson.

Yeah, right?

>
> If Jolly Roger or nospam didn't incessantly fabricate their imaginary iOS
> functionality, the OP would have had those three valid factual responses as
> his answer.

Take that up with nospam and JR.

>
> As it was, nospam and Jolly Roger *repeatedly* fabricated imaginary iOS
> functionality such that the OP tried and failed and then simiply said
> following their advice was "too complicated" (since none of it stood a
> chance of working since it was all just made up).

Take that up with nospam and JR.

>
> Meanwhile, while you deprecate the functionality discussions that I
> provided,

...and all that blather related to Android, and not the OP’s iOS problem.

> you ignore that you yourself posted completely unrelated battery
> backup information to that thread, all the while you deprecate the
> functional information I posted.

There exists in the Usenet world a thing called Thread drift. The Thread
drifted when both you and SMS started discussing the benefits of user
replaceble batteries, and SD card. So the individual who started the
unrelated thread drift was you. I merely responded to SMS’s response to
you.

>
> > If you read, and comprehend my only post in that thread
>
> What's amazing is that you posted *multieple times* in that thread, where
> you already forgot that you posted this:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/gPeVojoiCAAJ>
> which talks about completely unrealated sandisk products.

All of that was addressed above. Note that it is a response to SMS

>
> And then you posted this, also completely unrelated issue:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/62UPEo0iCAAJ>

All of that was addressed above. Note that it is a response to SMS.

>
> And then this completely unrelated issue:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/0quzhQAnCAAJ>

All of that was addressed above, but this time in response to nospam in the
same sub-thread..

>
> Before you then posted this statment that my facts caused iOS to not be
> able to do what DAvid Empson, me, and sms already told the OP that iOS
> can't do.

Nope! I said no such thing. You need to read and comprehend.

>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/ooCFANY5CAAJ>
>
> *The fact is you provided exactly 0 facts to help the OP solve the problem!*

Correct. Other than repeating what others had said regarding using iTunes and
backups within the Apple system I had nothing to add. However, I did comment
on my observation of what had happened in the thread, and the totally useless
Android contribution you made.
As you have noted elsewhere, the OP agreed with my summation.

>
> *The fact is you posted completely unrelated drivel about batteries.*

Drivel is in the eye of the beholder. I was just responding to thread drift
which you initiated. For real drivel you should engage in some self analysis.

>
> *The fact is you then blamed my factual posts, for the OP's failures.*

Actually that is not a fact. That is your response to an accurate
representation of the thread as it developed, and matured with the OP making
a simple choice to replace the app in question.
>
> Those are the facts.

You wouldn’t recognise a fact if it slapped you in the face.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On Jul 22, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article <pj3eh7$5ld$1...@dont-email.me>):

I really should minimize the pain, and just add *Arlen Holder* to the
nymshift killfile.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Arlen Holder]

On 22 Jul 2018 19:40:24 GMT, Savageduck wrote:

> I did not blame you or your posts for anything other than their irrelevance

> to the OP┬ iOS problem. He did not need to hear about the wonders of
> Android.

Neither did he need to hear you spew the wonders of your Sandisk choices,
now did he?

At least I answered the OP's question.
And, more importantly, I answered it correctly.

You did neither.
That is a fact.

[Savageduck]

On Jul 22, 2018, Arlen Holder wrote

(in article <pj3gi2$4lp$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On 22 Jul 2018 19:40:24 GMT, Savageduck wrote:
>
> > I did not blame you or your posts for anything other than their irrelevance

> > to the OP¢s iOS problem. He did not need to hear about the wonders of

> > Android.
>
> Neither did he need to hear you spew the wonders of your Sandisk choices,
> now did he?

...and yet you believe that it was just fine for you to spew the stuff which
led to me to tell you that Sandisk had storage solutions for both iOS and
Android. That seems to be a tad hypocritical of you.

I am sure you remember typing the following:

"I can populate an SD card with up to 2 terabytes of data (if I had a card
that big, but which my phone can accept if I had it).
Most of my phones are 8GB or 16GB, so it's nice to have that extra 256GB of
storage on the SD Cards, which is *impossible* on iOS. My latest device is
32GB and I've already used up 28GB with movies (each of which is around 4GB)
and apps (where I have over a hundred and fifty apps installed, many of which
are map apps with their data).

So when I pop in an SD Card, to extend my 32GB even further, you seem to
consider that a "bad thing”.”

"I can 'juggle an SD card of up to 2TB size if I want to and I immediately
have more storage for my APKs, map data, and a/v media.”

and regarding what led to my comments regarding batteries, you said the
following:

"HINT: I can go on a camping trip and bring a half-dozen batteries if I want
to, and I won't need to charge them since I never buy an Android phone
anymore that doesn't allow me to "juggle" and SD card and a removable battery
- neither of which functionality is available on any iOS device ever sold."

>
> At least I answered the OP's question.
> And, more importantly, I answered it correctly.

You did neither. You talk of Dunning-Kruger, and yet you fail to understand
how it relates to all of your behaviour. You fail to recognize your own
“blind spots” which makes your self assesment faulty. You just don’t
know, care to admit that there are things you do not know.

> You did neither.

At no point did I claim to to provide him a solution, but I expanded your
thread drift regarding SD cards, and batteries.

...and that is a fact.

> That is a fact.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Johan]

Op 23-jul.-18 om 02:42 schreef Arlen Holder:

Very, very boring! Go and play outside, take a drive in the country, do
something usefull, anything else than being behind your computer all
day, start getting your live back, f**k your wife although I think you
don't have one because who wants to live with such an obsessed person
like you. Go find a good psychiater to get rid off your obsession.

[Arlen Holder]

On 23 Jul 2018 05:16:56 GMT, Meanie wrote:

> I'm still dumbfounded as to why anyone responds to the attention whore
> idiot.

The reason Apple Apologists killfile me is because they hate facts.
The reason intelligent people don't, is that I speak of logic & reason.

Pick one.

[Arlen Holder]

On 22 Jul 2018 23:24:35 GMT, Savageduck wrote:

> ...and yet you believe that it was just fine for you to spew the stuff which
> led to me to tell you that Sandisk had storage solutions for both iOS and
> Android. That seems to be a tad hypocritical of you.

Hi Savageduck,

Thanks for that post above because it proves that your belief system is
comprised of imaginary circumstances, completely devoid of facts.

Do you see the "game" you Apple Apologists are always playing?
a. I answered the question, and talked about "other stuff".
b. All you did was talk about other stuff
c. Then you blamed the OP's failure on my posts.

Those are facts.

Since you're an Apple Apologist, you can't comprehend the simplest things:
A. Not only did I very clearly answer the OP's question,
B. But I also agreed with sms, David Empson, and Ziady036,
C. And I *refuted* the outrageous imaginary claims of nospam & JR.

Those are facts.

Since you're an Apple Apologists, you see *none* of that.
All you see is the word 'Android' and you blamed that for the OP's failure.

Since you're an Apple Apologists, let me be very clear:
1. You didn't once attempt to help the OP
2. You didn't once refute the outrageous claims by nospam and JR
3. You didn't once even agree with the correct answers made by other

Those are facts.

Both of us talked about off-topic tangents, and yet, you equate your
completely useless posts to the sum total of all my posts, which at least
(in multiple ways), helped answer the OP's question.

Do you see why you're a classic Apple Apologist, Savageduck?

*Your entire belief system is built upon a foundation lacking facts!*

[Arlen Holder]

On 23 Jul 2018 01:53:22 GMT, Johan wrote:

> Very, very boring! Go and play outside, take a drive in the country, do
> something usefull, anything else than being behind your computer all
> day, start getting your live back, f**k your wife although I think you
> don't have one because who wants to live with such an obsessed person
> like you. Go find a good psychiater to get rid off your obsession.

Most people on this newsgroup use the chitchat model, where they speak
drivel day in and day out, which is fine, as long as they respect adult
posters who ask related questions.

Funny you mention taking a drive though, as I'm replacing a clutch at this
very moment, where, interestingly, the Apple Apologist Wade Garrett has
been trolling that automotive technical thread with his incessant drivel.

It's a classic Apple Apologist move to childishly stalk a poster like Wade
Garrett is currently doing and which Snit did for 800 posts!

The Apple Apologists like Wade Garrett prove themselves to be children
every time they post.

[Elden]

On 2018-07-23, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> I really should minimize the pain, and just add *Arlen Holder* to the
> nymshift killfile.

You win a prize! Only you were a bit late coming to this conclusion.

--
-=Elden=-

[Arlen Holder]

On 23 Jul 2018 21:34:13 GMT, Elden wrote:

> You win a prize! Only you were a bit late coming to this conclusion.

The question valid question because Apple Apologists have been
psychologically extremely *different* from normal people for decades.

For example, for decades, almost all Mac/iOS threads that have compared
Apple products to other products, have unilaterally been strung out many
times longer than they needed to be, simply because the Apple Apologists
almost always fabricate imaginary functionality that never existed.
Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/yekUPvIXAwAJ>

Essentially for decades any thread that has Apple Apologists on it that
also contains actual facts, becomes an instant morass, simply because of
the consistent trait of the Apple Apologists to deny facts (such as the
battery fiasco of last year as just one example) where the Apple Apologists
consistently blamed Android many many many times, for Apple's design flaws!
Why do the Apple Apologists habitually deny well-known proven facts?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/fDk0k8KAAwAJ>

Why they do that is strange - but they're very consistent over the years,.

Since it's clear that the Apple Apologists are not normal people, and since
it's just as clear that almost all those long drawn out threads are
unilaterally because Apple Apologists jsut make everythign up as they go
along (and they play those silly semantic games constnatly), the
observation is perfectly valid that there is something wrong with them ...
but what?

The good news is this thread will serve to aid researchers in the future
who ponder what is so very different, psychologically, between the Apple
Apologists and normal adults.

[Johan]

Op 25-jul.-18 om 11:17 schreef Arlen Holder:

You are completly right, you belong to the "normal" people and the
"normal" adults, but you are so damned alone. You are like the
psychiater who is the only crazy person in the nut house.

[Arlen Holder]

On 25 Jul 2018 03:18:36 GMT, Johan wrote:

> You are completly right, you belong to the "normal" people and the
> "normal" adults, but you are so damned alone. You are like the
> psychiater who is the only crazy person in the nut house.

Thank you for helping us flesh out the list of Apple Apologist traits!

You seem to be ignorant that there are other, non-Apple, OS-related
newsgroups also.

For example, on the Linux newsgroup, where Apple Apologists don't post for
the most part, you almost never see nospam getting away with habitually
fabricating imaginary functionality like he has consistently does on the
Apple groups.

You almost never see people like nospam claiming they told the OP many
times how to perform that imaginary functionality.

You don't see people like Jolly Roger habitually fabricating content and
then responding to that fabricated content, like he incessantly does on the
Apple newsgroups.

You don't see people like Savageduck and Lewis and BK@OnRamp blaming every
fact about Linux they don't like on Microsoft.

And, I just realized there's another trait of the Apple Apologists that you
won't see on the Linux and Android and Windows newsgroups, which is that
every time someone mentions any fact about Apple that the Apple Apologists
don't like, they call the poster a troll, simply for telling the truth!

(Remember, I'm never wrong with my facts because facts are funny that way.)

So that adds one more extremely common trait to the list.
* They're allergic to facts, calling every fact they don't like, a troll.

* They're never purposefully helpful whenever they don't like the question
* They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary iOS functionality
* They then exclaim that they told us many times how to do it! :)
* They always "just guess" where their credibility is worthless
* They almost never back up their statements with any referenced facts
* They incessantly play silly childish word games when faced with facts
* They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
* Then they respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
* They consistently blame Android for the lack of functionality on iOS

Thank you for helping us flesh out the list of Apple Apologist traits!

[Arlen Holder]

Thanks to how nospam and Jolly Roger handled this thread today, we can add
two more very common traits of the Apple Apologists!
How does one upload voice memo recording to a web site directly from an iPhone?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc[1-25]>

. They assume if every step of a process is documented, then it's complex
. They assume elapsed time is proof of actual time spent in resolution

That makes the current list of repeated traits the following:
===========================================================================
. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary iOS functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it!
...
. They almost never back up statements with any referenced facts
. They incessantly play silly childish word games when faced with facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. Then they respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful whenever the question isn't liked
. They post worthless retorts without caring about lack of credibility
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of the iOS related problems
...
. They assume if every step of a process is documented, then it's complex
. They assume elapsed time is proof of actual time spent in resolution
===========================================================================
REFERENCE THIS POST MADE JUST NOW BY nospam!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/6GdDHnwFCgAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

There is proof of almost all the common psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists today in this fantastically revealing eye-opening thread today:

How does one upload voice memo recording to a web site directly from an iPhone?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc[1-25]>

For example, Jolly Roger, just moments ago, actually denied that the OP,
Wade Garrett, of this thread, failed at the task, where Jolly Roger and
nospam both had repeatedly screamed their imaginary iOS functionality would
work for the OP:
Copy App from iPad to iPad Mini
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw>

Jolly Roger claimed in this post moments ago that the OP was successful
following Jolly Roger's (and nospam's) imaginary iOS functionality!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/ZC2i4_hDCgAJ>

And yet, the OP of that thread clearly told the OP that it didn't work!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/C78-NjwnCAAJ>

Meanwhile, David Empson, the most knowledgeable iOS poster by far, clearly
says what the OP wants to do is impossible, which the OP agrees with!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/WTkoc1hBCgAJ>

And yet, Jolly Roger _still_ claims his imaginary functionality exists!
Even though not only David Empson, but the OP himself concluded it was
impossible!

Yet again, Jolly Roger exhibits one or more of these consistent traits:
. He brazenly & repeatedly fabricates wholly imaginary app functionality
. He then exclaims that it's been told to us many times how to do it!
...
. He almost never backs up statements with actual referenced facts
. He incessantly plays childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. He consistently fabricates quoted content that never happened
. He then wittily responds to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. He is never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. He posts worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. He consistently blames Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults
. He consistently finds the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. He actually believes that a well-documented process is too complex!
. He literally believes elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.

[Arlen Holder]

On 23 Jul 2018 21:34:13 GMT, Elden wrote:

> You win a prize!

For future historians to note, please see that the Apple Apologists are not
normal adults in that they exhibit the odd traits explained in this thread
in almost every post.

For example, just today, Jolly Roger both claimed that the sequence I
provided was *exactly* the same as his sequence...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/lMisrs0zCgAJ>
And, he claimed that this exact same sequence was "more complex" than his.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/_pnfZFsGCgAJ>

Simply because it showed a homescreen (where it appears that a homescreen
is "too much complexity" for the likes of Jolly Roger's brain to handle).

You can't be exact, and still be more complex if it's the same procedure!

Yet again, Jolly Roger, an average iOS user indeed, proves that...

[Arlen Holder]

On 22 Jul 2018 19:44:07 GMT, Savageduck wrote:

> I really should minimize the pain

Not only does Jolly Roger dispute that the OP just gave up, but Jolly Roger
apparently disputes the technical acumen of David Empson himself.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/Tufx3qIBZBw/z3kVVoc-CAAJ>

Even I wouldn't dare dispute anything technical David Empson says.

The Apple Apologists will deny any fact that doesn't fit their imaginary
belief system!

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Jul 2018 04:56:10 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Yet again, Jolly Roger exhibits one or more of these consistent traits:

There is another consistent psychological trait of the Apple Apologists
which showed itself in spades in this recent thread:

How does one upload voice memo recording to a web site directly from an iPhone?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc[1-25]>

In that thread, both Jolly Roger and nospam, when caught brazenly
fabricating imaginary iOS functionality, insist, beyond any possibility of
adult comprehensive logic, that "a cloud" is the same as a single web site
domain using the HTTP protocol!

Thinking of why the Apple Apologists are not normal people in that they
repeatedly make such brazenly fabricated assessments, I think it's not that
the Apple Apologists are as incredibly stupid as their statements make them
appear to be.

I think they just hate facts.
*Facts don't fit into their existing imaginary belief system.*

[Arlen Holder]

On 6 Aug 2018 20:40:01 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> "The cloud is the internet. The internet is
> the cloud.", which is 100% factual and correct.

Hehhehheh ... you prove me right in every post!

[Arlen Holder]

On 7 Aug 2018 08:29:50 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Go ahead and try to explain to the world why you believe the cloud is
> not the internet, doofus.

Note that the Apple Apologists like Jolly Roger constantly re-define terms
when they're shown to be completely incorrect on the facts they *guessed*
at.

What's interesting is that the Apple Apologists like nospam and Jolly Roger
have a very consistent set of common traits that they exude in *all* their
posts, as witnessed, yet again, by nospam, just now, in this Windows
thread, where everyone is talking facts, except nospam!
Why doesn't Apple just let you manage your iOS file system natively on Windows?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/ddcUPKpR7pc>

What's amazing is that these particular iOS users have no need for facts.
*Facts don't fit into these iOS users' wholly imaginary belief system.*

In this case, nospam made his classic comment that something could be done,
but of course, he just made it up - and when challenged - he made his next
most classic response saying "he told you so", which is so warn that nospam
lost his credibility years ago, as did Jolly Roger and Savageduck, Lewis,
BK@OnRamp, Joe, and a host of the other dozen Apple Apologists.

[Arlen Holder]

There is another common psychological trait of Apple Apologists that
happened in this hilarious thread today by Alan Baker (a Mac apologist).

Is Apple acknowledging that many users want an active stylus on their phones?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/-htvSf_DBpY/JEGc5d6nAAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/-htvSf_DBpY/ybl_fIOoAAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/-htvSf_DBpY/xxH5NvSpAAAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/-htvSf_DBpY/UoCW4erDAAAJ>

Whenever the Apple Apologists make their ridiculous statements denying
fact, I always confront the bullies frontally, by asking which fact they
deny.

Alan Baker, after having denied *all facts* a priori, is now endlessly
playing his silly semantic games because it was proven he denied all the
facts and yet - he didn't even *read* the references - and - worse - Alan
Baker can't eve list a *single fact* that he denies.

* They deny facts, a priori, and can't even list the facts that they deny.
* When caught, they endlessly complain about "quote snipping"
... because they dislike being pinned to any statements they make - where
they prefer their silly semantic games to take the forefront away from the
facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On 19 Aug 2018 15:34:52 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> * They deny facts, a priori, and can't even list the facts that they deny.
> * When caught, they endlessly complain about "quote snipping"

Here is the current summary ... each of which is referenced in this thread.

===========================================================================
. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it!
...
. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts
...
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!
...
. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value
...
. They consistently blame Android for most of Apple's app & hardware faults
. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons
...
. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.
...
. They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts!
. And then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games
===========================================================================

[Arlen Holder]

On 23 Jul 2018 00:42:34 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:
> Are those the common psychological traits of all the Apple Apologists?

BTW, here are some *Apple Apologist* traits in the news...

Confessions of an *Apple apologist*: The iPhone 6 disappoints
<http://www.bgr.in/news/confessions-of-an-apple-apologist-the-iphone-6-disappoints/>

MacRumors- what is an *Apple Apologist* anyway?
<https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apologists.2093606/>

The latest *Apple apologist* meme: the post-spec era
<https://betanews.com/2011/11/15/the-latest-apple-apologist-meme-the-post-spec-era/>

To all the *Apple apologist* on Big Screens
<https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/to-all-the-apple-apologist-on-big-screens.1774672/>

https://mashable.com/2016/07/23/killing-headphone-jack-sucks/
"That's the response I expect to hear from all *the apologists* who
think that smartphones without headphone jacks are NBD."

And, of course, on Usenet:
Why do *Apple Apologists* lie so much about iOS capabilities?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/98CPbQfNTV8/dTVK7PesBgAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

Another common psychological trait of the Apple Apologists happened thrice
(by three different Apple Apologists) recently.

* When asked for references, their cites almost always disprove their statements
=================
Here is the post referencing Lewis' claim & refuted by Frank Slootweg:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6K_vWtDA7sM/ReaWKhyjEwAJ>
=================
Here is a more detailed explanation of this Apple Apologist common trait:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6K_vWtDA7sM/s-iVVWOoEwAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

Yet again, the classic Apple Apologist nospam exhibited this trait:

* They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
* Then they respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!

1. Here is the actual content: Message-ID: <pktb63$nek$1...@news.mixmin.net>
2. nospam's response: Message-ID: <130820182136175144%nos...@nospam.invalid>

Notice that the Apple Apologists desperately *wish* to "sound" intelligent,
but since they can't converse like a normal adult would, they childishly
fabricate imaginary quoted content and then they respond to this
fabrication of content as if the conversation actually occurred!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/thzNPjSpEwAJ>

Why do the Apple Apologists commonly exhibit this specific trait?
I don't know why.

But it's repeatedly in evidence so it's certainly a common trait of theirs.

[Arlen Holder]

Here is yet another *classic* proof of the traits of Apple Apologists!
Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss>

In this thread, the Apple Apologist "nospam" proved, yet again, most of the
traits explained in this thread.
* He outright denies that the real world exists outside the walled garden
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/1Va7J9N0EgAJ>
* His claims play silly semantic games using the logic of a child
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/ZzTiMhU0AwAJ>

He even denies that which Apple already publicly admitted!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/sORcJV9sEgAJ>

Even the canonical Apple Apologist "Alan Baker" proved that Apple
Apologists deny the real world, and their own cites consistently prove that
they don't say what the Apple Apologists "wished" (or thought) they said!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/3NhWO8Z2EgAJ>

Likewise, the Apple Apologist "joe" proved more of this child's logic by
outright denying facts that no sentient logical adult would (or could) ever
deny with a straight face.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/gWHRlOwAAwAJ>

Some additional common psychological traits showed up in that thread:
a. The Apple user lives in a mind-bending inordinate fear of the real world
b. The Apple owner buys based on fear, style, and walled-garden convenience

It was shown in that thread that the Apple user never buys functionality.
It's not that they don't like free functional products.
It's that their utter inordinately mind-changing fear drives them moreso.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/WFUEglB7EgAJ>

In that specific thread, two Apple Apologists, "joe" and "nospam", deny the
fact that Flash exists in the real world, and they deny the fact that it
works just fine on Android - simply because their fear drives them to make
such childishly easily-proven-wrong comments.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/Iwc6uFQ-EgAJ>

In summary, the Apple Apologist is distinctly different from normal adults.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-08-29 9:31 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> Here is yet another *classic* proof...


...of your tediousness?

> of the traits of Apple Apologists!
> Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus)
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss>

It's the "closest" because you say it is?

'iPhone X and iPhone 8 Are World's Fastest Phones (It's Not Even Close)'

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-8-benchmarks-fastest-phone,review-4676.html>

The Motorola X4 scores 864 on GeekBench 4 single core.

The iPhone 8 scores 4219.

That's better than the X4 scores in the multi-core test (4077).

The iPhone scores 10116 in multi-core.

<https://browser.geekbench.com/android_devices/442>

<https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/50>


So would you care to explain how the X4 is supposedly the "closest
Android phone to an iPhone 8"?

<tedious ranting snipped>

[joe]

On 8/29/2018 11:31 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

>
> It was shown in that thread that the Apple user never buys functionality.
> It's not that they don't like free functional products.
> It's that their utter inordinately mind-changing fear drives them moreso.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/WFUEglB7EgAJ>
>
> In that specific thread, two Apple Apologists, "joe" and "nospam", deny the
> fact that Flash exists in the real world, and they deny the fact that it
> works just fine on Android - simply because their fear drives them to make
> such childishly easily-proven-wrong comments.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CxMAGla24ss/Iwc6uFQ-EgAJ>

Please show in that thread where I deny that Flash exists.

[Arlen Holder]

Here is another case where the Apple Apologists blame Android for Apple's
lack of testing of their products in the real world!

nospam:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TUuKMvKHZfY/Vr08V_BXBAAJ>
response:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TUuKMvKHZfY/fsLzerFbBAAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

The Apple Apologists are so consistently childish that they prove that they
constantly love to blame Android for each of Apple's individual faults.

Here is proof of Lewis playing this "Android made Apple do it" blame game:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/nRxXTD7TBQAJ>

Here is the analysis of the Apple Apologists' child-like assertions:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/nPF_jLbZBQAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

*Each time Apple Apologist Lewis posts, we witness the mind of a child!*

Here is yet another post, just now, by Apple Apologist Lewis, proving that
the Apple Apologists revel in blaming Android for Apple's poor decisions!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/x4Y7q3rTBQAJ>

"It's interesting that Android manufacturers do EXACTLY THE SAME THING,
only they also fake their results on bacnhmarks, and yet not on the
androolers seem to care about that."

Here is the analysis of the consistent actions of Apple Apologist Lewis:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/z8jpRtXaBQAJ>

Notice that the child-like Apple Apologists can never argue based on actual
referenced facts - so what they tend to consistently do is blame Android
for Apple being "forced to" secretly, drastically, and permanently throttle
CPUs to less than half speed after about a year (and then it just gets
worse from there).

Facts don't have a place to fit in Apple Apologists imaginary belief system

[Arlen Holder]

Notice proof today how the Apple Apologists consistently flatly deny facts!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/UxgOGmzXBQAJ>

In this post, Rod Speed childishly and flatly denies facts by saying:
"No you didn┤."

The analysis of Apple Apologists Rod Speeds own words is here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/lGWxQ2vaBQAJ>

Time and again, the Apple Apologist proves that facts have no place in
their imaginary belief systems. What the Apple Apologists like Rod Speed
consistently do is simply deny facts outright.

*Only then can they reconcile facts with their imaginary belief system.*

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-09-03 6:19 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> The Apple Apologists are so consistently childish that they prove that they
> constantly love to blame Android for each of Apple's individual faults.
>
> Here is proof of Lewis playing this "Android made Apple do it" blame game:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FAU-w_lj0kQ/nRxXTD7TBQAJ>

Here is the text that Lewis wrote:

"So, 1% the experience of the newest Apple engineer working on batteries?
0.01%?

Unlike SOME companies, Apple's never designed a battery to explode. "

Which words match your claim?

[Arlen Holder]

It's clear from this thread today that Apple Apologists are driven by fear.
Comparative Resale Values of Flagship Phones, Including Variations Among Carriers
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VWcr8qj2bh8[1-25]>

That inordinate fear permeates even the decision about going to dealers
for automotive repairs, apparently, as evidenced by posts like this today:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VWcr8qj2bh8/t7hYMYN7BwAJ>

Which is filled with an inordinate *fear* permeating every decision!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VWcr8qj2bh8/IeXga_2RBwAJ>

[Arlen H. Holder]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 22:48:44 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
Yet again, the Apple Apologists _claim_ imaginary functionality, where they
sent poor Ant on a sadistic wild goose chase, and where Ant was supremely
unsuccessful with the Airdrop asphyxiation, after failing with the iTunes
abomination.
What's the best way to copy someone's iDevice's photos to another user's MacBook locally?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xEF1mtuvvJc>

Here's what I just wrote to the canonical Apple Apologist, nospam:
===================================================
1 minute 55 seconds, and Ant would have been done!
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9185854windows_to_ios.jpg>

The difference between you and normal people, nospam, is you're full of
shit.

You can't prove a single statement you make.
Meanwhile, _all_ mine are valid verified facts.

Think about that.
That's the difference between an adult, and an Apple Apologist.

I proved I copied 400 files from *any* mobile device (I don't even have to
own it) to any other file system (whether that be Android, Windows, iOS, or
Linux).

For what Ant was doing, from iOS to the desktop file system, it took
- 1 minute, 55 seconds

In two minutes, I did what Ant has been taking days (elapsed time) trying
to do following your classic wild goose chases.

And yet you claim it can be done - all the while you can't do it.
Classic Apple Apologist bullshit nospam.

You have zero credibility.
You can't do 99% of what you _say_ you can do.

Meanwhile, I prove everything I say.
That's the difference between an adult, and an Apple Apologist.

1 minute 55 seconds, and Ant would have been done!
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9185854windows_to_ios.jpg>
===================================================

[joe]

On 9/19/2018 10:22 AM, Arlen H. Holder wrote:

>
> 1 minute 55 seconds, and Ant would have been done!
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9185854windows_to_ios.jpg>
> ===================================================
>

Not really. Copying files to Windows or Linux does not get them on the
MacBook.

[Arlen Holder]

Here is a list of the dozen most prolific Apple Apologists on this ng.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mehGxIGcoa8>

That list contains more examples, where every day, the Apple Apologists
prove the veracity of the traits outlined in this thread.

For example, just look at this thread containing multiple admissions by
Alan Baker that he didn't even *click* on the fact-containing URLs, before
strenuously declaring that all the facts contained therein were false!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ImMvxwkJZFQ/CvPQt6GRAwAJ>

These Apple Apologists don't even _read_ what they say is false!
That's a _classic" Apple Apologist maneuver.

Also look at the repeated incorrect responses by J.F. Mezei on that same
thread, where it's amazing that people can't comprehend even _simple_
facts.

Most of the other Apple Apologists said, outright, they didn't want facts.
Facts don't seem to have a place to fit in their imaginary belief system.

But this Apple Apologists says that they're wrong - where he admits that he
didn't bother to read them!

Classic proof that Apple Apologists are not like normal adults.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:24:44 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Classic proof that Apple Apologists are not like normal adults.

Here is a classic post by an Apple Apologist, Lewis.
How do I redownload and reinstall an older version of iOS app into my iPhone 4S?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/56nEgAZIjGk/YENXXP3gBAAJ>

The poor sop Ant was screwed by iTunes' inability to do what the user
expected it to do.

Bearing in mind that _all_ other common consumer platforms other than iOS
have the basic functionality this poor unsuspecting user Ant expected.

Notice exactly how the Apple Apologist Lewis responded!
a. Lewis _blames_ the user, and, more to the point,
b. He makes up _excuses_ for why Apple won't let the user do what he wants

What happened is that a user, Ant, was screwed by the iTunes abomination.
That user Ant expected the functionality on _all_ other platforms but iOS.

When that user, Ant, found out that iTunes screwed him royally, the
Apple Apologist Lewis ranted on with _excuses_ for iTunes' bad behavior.

Never once did the Apple Apologist Lewis mention that _every_ other
consumer platform enables this basic and trivially simple functionality.

[Arlen Holder]

By way of further proof ... since adults are all about facts...

In this post from moments ago, the Apple Apologist nospam makes the
*classic* move of *blaming the user* for iTunes destroying an entire music
collection sans any contemporary warning whatsoever!

How do I redownload and reinstall an older version of iOS app into my iPhone 4S?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/56nEgAZIjGk/rv0rsG7zBAAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

This thread is _perfect_ proving exactly how _stupid_ Apple Apologists are!
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/26HhpfRQ/ios-12-0-1>
o *Chris in Makati* -> From: Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com>
o *BK@onRamp* -> From: B...@Onramp.net
o *Meanie* -> From: Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o *Your Name* -> From: Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o *Hemidactylus* -> From: Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>

That thread contained trivial facts.
Easily proven facts.
Really _simple_ facts.

And yet, each of the Apple Apologists above, got those simple facts wrong!
Consistently.
Repeatedly.

Not only did they get those simple facts wrong though.
They _ridiculed_ the two people on this thread who had their facts right!

What's amazing, actually, is that the Apologists above act like children.
o They got even the _simplest_ of facts dead wrong
o Every one of their conclusions, as a result, was dead wrong
o They ridiculed the two people who had their facts right!

This thread is _perfect_ to prove Apple Apologist are not normal people!
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lG4eI7QeEbw>

*Actual facts have absolutely no place to fit in their belief system.*

All you Apple Apologists whoosh on even the _simplest_ of basic facts!
o First, BK@OnRamp jumped to completely erroneous conclusions:
> The idiot must be referring to 12 not 12.0.1.
o Then, Chris in Makiti jumped to completely erroneous conclusions:
> What an arse he is. Confusing 12 with 12.0.1
o Then, Meanie jumped to completely erroneous conclusions:
> Ignore the ass. You'll never win.

Meanwhile, the only adults here were Ant, and me, both of whom used facts.

What's amazing is that you Apple Apologists can't comprehend simple facts.
Worse, you Apple Apologists jump to conclusions supported by _zero_ facts.
You make everything up - your thought process is entireley fictional.

You brazenly fabricated what clearly never happened.
*And yet, you actually _believe_ your brazen imaginary fabrications!*

If this thread alone doesn't prove that Apple Apologists are children,
you'll never comprehend why you're not at all like normal adults.

[Arlen Holder]

There is a _perfect_ example of Apple Apolostist excuses here today:
moving songs to another device
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Khjmvxl2ckA>

What happened is that Lewis told badgolferman that iTunes won't do what
badgolferman expects it to do which is simply copy an MP3 file the way
badgolferman wants the flie to be copied.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Khjmvxl2ckA/kuIWzXALCAAJ>

Whether or not Lewis is correct, what is interesting is that Lewis feels
the need to "apologize" for the perceived limitations of iTunes'
functionality:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Khjmvxl2ckA/0EvREZESCAAJ>

Lewis must turn this perceived lack of Apple capability into a "moral
crusade" as an apology.

*It's a classic Apple Apologist excuse!*

This errant juxtaposition of a lack of functionality with a moral crusade
is something the Apple Apologist "nospam" does all the time, where it's a
common "excuse" by the Apple Apologists for lack of Apple functionality
(e.g., call recording, torrenting, official Tor functionality, etc.).
o Apple Apologist excuses for lack of Call Recording functionality
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wtm8DFXuz20/IoGmkjsABwAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Vzqi7TMVgPs/jSpfOcVR458J>

o Apple Apologist excuses for lack of torrenting functionality
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/o7LIocpGkPg/LHWYqyDYxGUJ>

o Apple Apologist excuses for lack of official Tor functionality
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/A8yry1XPCxI/Hb1d67uaBAAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:13:44 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> There is a _perfect_ example of Apple Apolostist excuses here today:
> moving songs to another device
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Khjmvxl2ckA>

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:28:16 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I don't completely agree with your assessment.

I actually did NOT expect any response, so I appreciate that you did
respond, where I will read carefully and respond accordingly, with respect
& intelligence applied.

Since you act like an adult, I doubt we'll have any problem agreeing on
most logical facts, nor in stating the ramifications of those facts.

Adults are funny that way, just as facts are funny that way.

> The Apple ecosystem and
> file handling is a different animal than what I am used to with the
> Windows environment.

I agree completely that both actions are _completely_ different on Apple
operating systems than on all other common consumer operating systems:
o How Apple handles the "ecosystem" (i.e., what apps can do), and,
o How Apple handles files (i.e., what you can do with your own files).

You are correct that these two differences are done overwhelmingly
*differently* on Apple products.

Nobody logical could disagree with your assessment that what you (and I)
are used to in the Windows, Linux, & Android environment, doesn't apply in
the Apple environment.

> Simple file managing is not so simple with Apple
> devices, but that's the nature of the beast for whatever reason.

This is true, where, on all other common consumer operating systems, an MP3
file is just that. It's a file. It's no different from a text file or a
binary file in terms of what "freedom" the user has to manage it or
collections of it (which Apple calls, strangely, a "library").

You slide MP3 files around just like you move text files around.
There are no artificially imposed restrictions on copying MP3 files.

I agree that this is how all the other consumer operating systems work.

> However Apple mobile devices backup and restore quite nicely so long as
> you play with their limitations.

You bring up an excellent point which I have never disagreed with.

I agree & have _always_ agreed, that, if you do exactly what Apple
marketing has told you to do, that the "walled garden ecosysystem" works
quite well for most users.

Obviously, for a power user, the walled garden is too restrictive; but
we're talking, I assume, about the average user, like Jolly Rorger or Lewis
or BK@OnRamp are, where, for those average users, the ecosystem works
*perfectly*.

The caveat, of course, is that you have to do what Apple marketing wants
you to do, which, as you noted, is not how we do things on all other common
consumer platforms, such as Windows, Linux, or Android.

Hence there is a difference in how you do things:
o Apple users do things the way Apple marketing wants them to do them
o Linux/Windows/Android users do things the way they want to do them

> I compare my iPhones to my wife/son Android devices and notice the
> difference in reliability and overall polish.

Here is where we, as adults, can handle the complexities involved.
Your statement could be completely true or totally false, or in between.
Everything depends on the details inherent in your analysis above.

For example, did you _pay_ as much for those Android phones as for Apple?
If not, you're not comparing the proper price-to-polish metric.

Are those Android phones using the same set of apps as for Apple?
If not, you may be comparing apps, and ascribing _that_ to the OS.

I have an iPad (lots of them), & I currently have an LG Stylo 3 Plus.
As you're aware, I paid only $130 each for a handful of those phones.

I use the LG Stylo 3 Plus _far_ more than the iPad.
Why?

For one, it does more things. Period. (We won't belabor that fact.)
But, for the other, it does the _same_ things as iOS does, but better!

For one example, I can watch YouTube videos on iOS or on Android.
o On iOS, I'm forced to watch ad, after ad, after ad, after ad.
o On Android, I've never once ever seen a YouTube ad.

For another, in my experience over many years, iOS WiFi is unreliable.

You don't want to get me started on the unreliablity of WiFi on Apple
products, where I posted, years ago, my audio of the crazy conversation
with the Apple Genius Bar employees, who don't even know what a decibel is
(neither did Jolly Roger, Lewis, nospam, BK@OnRamp, etc.).

Suffice to say I'm pretty good at WiFi, having set up WISP networks all
over my neighborhood, where I've proved many times that I can hold any one
of three iPads against any one of my many Android phones in my very hands,
and walk around my rather large house of many floors with over a dozen
access points, where _clearly_ the iOS device is _always_ less reliable in
noticing and connecting (hence switching) to the stronger access point.

Those are facts above that are easily proven (and which have been proven).

Your statement that Android is "less reliable" and "less polished" may or
may not be true - but as an adult - I would expect a fact backing up that
statement.

My belief system is based on facts so I expect facts from you on yours.
It's how adults communicate, and it's how we can agree or disagree.

I would agree with you on the fact that there may be far more _chances_ for
Android to "get complex" for a simple user such as the average users Jolly
Roger, BK@OnRamp, etc., where for _them_, the complexities involved in
having choices may inundate them.

But for an average adult, I don't think there's any good evidence presented
yet that shows that Android is any less reliable than iOS is, if we assume
we're comparing comparable hardware phones.

For example, let's not compare a $35 Android p;hone with a $1500 iOS phone
if we want to look at reliability and polish.

Since my LG Stylo 3 Plus is $130, and since it compares favorably with
hardware on the vive times more expensive iPhone 7 Plus, I would consider
_those_ two phones a reasonable comparison on reliability and polish
though.

I would then ask, how does the reliability & polish of these two phones
compare?
* $640 iPhone 7 Plus
* $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/HDI8moW_4Pw%5B1-25%5D>

If you ask me to run a reliability or polish test, I can run it on that
Android phone against one of my many iPads (the latest being on iOS 11.2.6
which it was born with).

> I do wish there was more customization allowed on my Apple
> devices though.

This is a basic statement that I would agree with a priori.

I think there's a certain "type" of user who gravitates to the lack of
customization on iOS products - but I haven't figure out exactly what about
that lack of customization appeals to them.

I think it could be that they don't even realize what you and I know.
Or, it could be that they don't care (giving up is easily done).
Or, it could be that they stay wholly within the Apple ecosystem?

Or it could even be, as the Apologists love to say, that this lack of
customization proves *safety & security* benefits as a tradeoff.

I don't know why it appeals so very much to the average Apple user - but I
will agree wholeheartedly with you that iOS lacks the customization that
users on all other common consumer platforms simply take for granted.

> I do agree though that a sense of superiority and smugness seems
> prevalent among many Apple enthusiasts, but that's not limited only to
> them in this newsgroup.

I think this statement, by you, is very important. Extremely important.
Why I think it's important is that I have been studying the Apple user for
about two decades.

In the beginning, I would try to "reason" with the average Apple user.

For years, it bothered me immensely, for example, trying to reason with the
likes of nospam, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Chris, Meanie, BK@OnRamp, Alan Bakerm
Tim Streater, Savageduck, Hemidactylus, Your Name, etc.

You can't reason with those dozen users like you would with an adult.

Basically, as I've said many times, the only conclusion that is possible:
o Is that they're actually _that_ childish or dumb, or,
o They are just playing their silly childish games _all the time_.

There are no other reasonable conclusions that can be made based on what
they write on Usenet.

However ... lately ... I've come to think it's something somewhat
different, which is that they have a religious belief system on Apple
products.

I use the word "religious" because it is intended to mean that a "God" has
spoken (that God being Apple Marketing), where everything that God says, is
taken as gospel, even as there is no evidence or proof backing up that
dogma.

I think, it could be, that these average Apple users are so beholden to
this religious belief in whatever that God tells them, that their minds are
completely closed to facts to the contrary.

If that is true (and it appears to fit the facts), then ...
o Is it really appropriate to call them _dumb_ or _childish_?

If they were simply religious zealots, to, say, a Jim Jones' type of god,
would I consider them childishly dumb or stupid - or - would I just
consider them under the influence of a god-like proponent of ideas that
just don't hold up to facts?

I do not know the answer to this question, but, there are a certain set of
about a dozen average Apple users on this newsgroup who fit that assessment
that they're not really as dumb or childish as they sound - they're just
under the divine influence of a god-like dogma that leaves them no room to
consider facts to the contrary of what that God tells them.

In summary, I agree with all your assessments, where Android has its flaws
for sure (e.g., assigning a drive letter on Windows over MTP), but where
you seem to _understand_ and _comprehend_ *exactly* what the iOS product
is, and what it isn't.

Hence, kudos to you for _comprehending_ what is, and for having a logical
fact-based adult perspective on the analysis of those facts.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:42:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the typical iOS
> poster on this newsgroup?

UPDATE:
o Seven Basic Habits of the Apple Apologists when responding to fact:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

... *HABIT 1:*

. They brazenly & repeatedly fabricate wholly imaginary app functionality
. They then exclaim that it's been told to us many times how to do it

... *HABIT 2:*

. They almost never back up statements with actual referenced facts
. They incessantly play childish semantic games when faced with those facts

... *HABIT 3:*

. They deny facts a priori - without even reading the referenced facts

. Then they complain about quote snipping of their silly semantic games
... *HABIT 4:*

. They're never purposefully helpful by helping the OP answer the question
. They post worthless retorts, all of which lack any added technical value

... *HABIT 5:*
. *They consistently blame Android for Apple's app & hardware faults*

. They consistently find the absolute worst price:performance comparisons

... *HABIT 6:*

. They actually believe that a well-documented process is too complex!
. They literally believe elapsed time is proof of actual resolution time.

... *HABIT 7:*
. They consistently fabricate quoted content that never happened
. They then wittily respond to that imaginary quoted content as if it did!

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:19:35 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> UPDATE:
> o Seven Basic Habits of the Apple Apologists when responding to fact:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

UPDATE:
This thread below, over the past 24 hours, is a PERFECT APOLOGIST example!

o It proves Apologists are far to the left in Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias
o Apologists _blame_ everyone but Apple for Apple's faults
o Apologists deny even that which Apple, themselves, admits

REFERENCE:
o facetime privacy bug
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NFW7nz6FELw>

[arlen holder]

> Are those the common psychological traits of all the Apple Apologists?

You have to read this thread to comprehend the Apple Apologists!
1. If I say something bad about Apple, they flatly deny it (sans facts).
2. If I say something _good_ about Apple, they flatly deny it (sans facts).

o facetime privacy bug
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NFW7nz6FELw>

They deny that the bug exists.
They deny that a photo taken of devices by a user was taken by that user.
They even flatly deny what the NY Times reports (as if they know more)!

*They simply flatly deny _everything_ (sans facts)!*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NFW7nz6FELw/4CjrtXL8BwAJ>

That! Is the psychology we are dealing with!

o Dunning Kruger left side psychological cognitive bias
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4/M9NWnnAAFgAJ>

[arlen holder]

I've been studying the Apple user for years, and nospam in particular.

He is an enigma, since he has _most_ of the traits of the Apologists,
but not _all_ of the traits of the typical Apologist.

Nospam simply refutes any fact he doesn't like about Apple products.

He's so BUSY denying all the facts about Apple lately (what with the slew
of highly defective astronomically priced iPhones), that he doesn't even
have TIME to hit the shift key anymore!

Besides...
He has only 7 basic responses (which we listed in the psychology thread).

He's wrong far more often than he's right, which means his "plan"
is not to ever be purposefully helpful to the OP.

It's just not.

His plan is "something else".

For most of the dozen Apologists (e.g., Joerg Lorenz, Alan Baker, BK,
Lewis, Jolly Roger, et al.), their entire belief system is threatened by
facts.

None of them can handle facts since they're all, apparently, far to the
left on the dunning-kruger scale (i.e., they literally _believe_ that the
lemon juice not only worked, but their tests _proved_ that it worked).

Nospam is not like those Apple Apologists, but yet, he's still an
Apologist.

Nospam simply refutes any fact he doesn't like about Apple products.
Why?

I've identified 3 different modes when nospam denies facts:
Mode 1: He just hates the fact (e.g., when he fabricates functionality)
Mode 2: When he's utterly clueless (e.g., iPhone X throttling)
Mode 3: When he's cleverly using semantics to dance around facts

Notice that the Apple Apologists all have Mode 1 and Mode 2, but only those
like nospam have Mode 3.

The reason I know nospam isn't a "normal" Apple Apologist is that he's
clever enough in his words (as is James Comey and other sleazy politicians)
to dance around facts - which means he KNOWS the facts when he outright
denies them.

That's the mark of someone playing a MARKETING game, by the way.

In a way, the best way to understand nospam is to ASSUME he works for Apple
where you assume his job is to outright deny any fact that doesn't fit
Apple Marketing Propaganda.

Back to the topic of this post, he's so BUSY denying all the facts about
Apple lately (what with the slew of highly defective astronomically priced
iPhones), that he doesn't even have TIME to hit the shift key anymore!

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 04:38:27 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> o Apologists deny even that which Apple, themselves, admits

The apologists like nospam & Jolly Roger & Lewis, et al., suffer from two
ignominious faults:
o They constantly make up bullshit to excuse Apple's behavior, and, worse
o They constantly send innocent people on hopeless wild goose chases

The pointless wild-goose chases is what irked me most about Apologists.

They, seemingly maliciously, constantly sent people on unproductive wild
goose chases when asked even the simplest of questions on how to do things
in Mac & iOS that turn out to be impossible but that are obvious on all
other platforms.

Why are they so purposefully cruel?
o At first I thought they were simply ignorant of what iOS could do
o I have realized they sent people on futile wild-goose chases _on purpose_

These malicious wild-goose chases can only be purposefully malicious on
their part.

It was horrible what they do to innocent clueless people who ask questions.
o Ever since then, I decided to expose them for exactly what they are.

In addition, a lessor offense the apologists all own is the simple fact
o Their belief system is completely imaginary.

I can easily understand _why_ their belief system is purely imaginary
o Marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems
o And Apple Marketing is one of the finest on this planet at that endeavor

For example, we've easily proven that no mobile device is private, where I
can list facts where iOS isn't at all private and where Android is, and
vice versa, and I can just as easily list facts where both are private and
both are not private.

Any adult who is logical and sentient can do that
o But not the Apologists

They actually _believe_ that their imaginary belief system, which is handed
to them by Apple, is, in actuality, real.

This is why it takes only about ten seconds to DESTROY anything nospam says
o Their imaginary belief system doesn't hold up well to actual facts

BTW, I'm perfectly fine with the Apologists owning a personal belief system
which is entirely imaginary, as that is _why_ they own Apple products in
the first place; what I'm against are the constant bullshit arguments they
propose (e.g., remember when Snit "proved" that iOS could do something as
simple as graph wifi all visible wifi access points over time?)
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> (Snit video)

The apologists (and even Frank Slootweg) ate that idiocy up for weeks!
o And yet, not a single one of them ever even looked at the Y axis!

In short, I don't mind their imaginary belief system as long as they keep
it to themselves, but what I mind greatly is that they constantly send poor
unsuspecting users on pointless wild goose chases out of sheer malicious
intent.
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users
on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>

> While he brings occasionally valid points,
> his general attitude is rather unlucky.

I've studied all the apologists and can even list the most egregious ones.

What's important are their traits, which are common to all of them:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Fundamentally, they bullshit like there is no tomorrow:
o Since their entire belief system is imaginary, facts destroy their
beliefs
o Hence, they can't stand actual _facts_ about the Apple product line!
o So they incessantly bullshit, creating imaginary functionality where none
exists.

o The real question is Why do Apple Apologists _hate_ facts about Apple
products?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/boEv7_ePPQ0/ck2VBgaaCgAJ>

Again, I wish to be clear; I don't mind at all that they own imaginary
belief systems; what I mind is that they argue incessantly with people who
don't own their imaginary belief system, where they just make everything
up.

They waste our time with their constant childish bullshit
o I think it's because facts literally _threaten_ their belief system

> In my understanding, Apple and Microsoft have one common thing:
> "They know better than their customers, what they really need and want.".

I think _all_ marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief
systems.

Since you have a chemistry degree (and since I have plenty of college-level
chem classes), I'll use an example out of basic organic chemistry.

For example, Exxon promotes "high-test fuel", which, as you know, is no
better than regular octane fuel for most cars (where paying more for
high-test is what a lot of people do, and where they waste their money on
their imaginary belief system that high-octane rated fuel is somehow
(magically?) better).

The octane rating is merely a scale based on the percentage of 2,2,4
tri-methyl pentane and hexane, where, in effect, the higher-octane fuel
performs _worse_ (although not measurably so in the real world) in cars
that are designed for the lower octane-rated fuels (for normally
functioning engines).

As another example out of organic chemistry, polyetheramines are sort of a
soap for gasoline, where "Techron" sells an imaginary belief system to
Chevron users in the United States. The "Techron" brand is actually
completely meaningless, since it's just a trademark, but the moment Chevron
puts that name on a gasoline product, people pay MORE for what is simply
polyetheramines which EVERYONE puts in their gasoline already.

My point is that _all_ marketing organizations create imaginary belief
systems in fools, which is fine by me becuase I can't fix those fools.

But when those fools do two things on this newsgroup, then I resort to
facts to combat their malicious posts.
1. If they send people on purposefully malicious wild-goose chases
2. If they spew purposefully deceitful unhelpful product bullshit

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:42:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the typical iOS
> poster on this newsgroup?

UPDATE:

FACT & then LOGIC deduced from fact.

Today we can point to yet another absolutely enlighteningly classic Apple
thread where two of the Apple Apologists _instantly_ devolved into their
rather limited half-dozen common psychological traits, simply because Apple
Apologists can't seem to process facts that they don't like.
o NYT: Why Does Apple Control Its Competitors? [aka There Used to Be An App For That]
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sRUkCP3Ksu8/PvIaqxOqAQAJ>

The hope is that future psychologists will mine this thread and its
references, to better understand why certain people tend to gravitate to
imaginary products created by well-run M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G organizations
based on the simple trait that facts are meaningless to these people.

Without any facts backing up their admittedly strongly held belief systems,
their logic is untenable, as we instantly found in that thread, which, yet
again, proves the point that Apple Apologists tend to hold completely
imaginary belief systems, and hence, are not like normal adults.

It's their psychology which Apple MARKETING takes advantage of, IMHO.
o Apologists tend to _gravitate_ to the imaginary product Apple espouses

When confronted with actual facts, they instantly react vehemently, and
violently, calling the bearer of facts an "evil motherfucker", simply for
bringing valid well cited actual facts to the conversation.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sRUkCP3Ksu8/M_7jBvpQAgAJ>

What I love is that the Apologists prove to be consistent in their
half-dozen (rather limited) response to facts.

[Arlen G. Holder]

By way of further proof, there is a fantastic discussion between an adult
and an Apple Apologist in this thread today, which proves beyond any doubt,
that this particular Apple Apologist forms a belief system based on zero
facts, where any fact that they don't like, they simply deny out of hand.
o Apple App Store Security Bypassed By Government iOS Surveillance Malware
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8>

List of facts that the Apple Apologist brazenly denies out of hand:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8/y6KSW0PzAgAJ>

Summary of that list which was automatically denied by the Apologist:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8/WRm6ooBFAwAJ>

Latest response to a summary of those facts by that Apologist:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8/PttCgt5iAwAJ>
NOTE: The Apologists brazenly deny all facts they don't like.

Summary analysis where the Apologist formed imaginary belief systems
which are threatened by facts, hence they simply deny that the facts are
facts, simply because they don't like the facts:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8/mJ5nyc6MAwAJ>

Note: It's the same with _all_ of the score of Apple Apologists who post.
Here, for example, is the _same_ conversation with another apologist:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8/XdR0VlwRAwAJ>

The Apologists simply call facts "tedious":
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/cYIk9tHN-g8/0HZ1GHkEAwAJ>

It's a fact that the apologists deny facts they don't like.
o They call those facts, "tedious". :)

The question is why?
o I don't know why.

My hypothesis is that they're like a child told the Easter Bunny isn't real
o The core instinct is to deny facts that DESTROY their imaginary beliefs.

That's why I posit the apologists own the mind of a child
o Adults modify their belief system _based_ on the facts

Children cling to their imaginary belief system _despite_ the facts.
o Hence, Apologists' minds are much like the mind of an undeveloped adult.

[Arlen G. Holder]

Consistently, the score of Apple Apologists blame everyone but Apple for
Apple's serious design flaws!

Just today, a serious MacBook design flaw was reported.
o Apple recalls older 15-inch MacBook Pros because the batteries could catch fire
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/-Gglzpp7ddk>

What do the Apologists instantly do?
o *They instantly blame Lenovo (of all companies) for Apple's serious design flaws!*

Happens every time!

It just proves that apologists are not like normal people.
o They're more like children.

Blaming everyone but Apple is one of the half dozen common traits of all
Apple Apologists.
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Liar!

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 16:54:24 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Liar!

Maybe I know much more about Apple & Apple apologists than you think!

A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

A classic case of the imaginary privacy advertised by Apple ensued today...
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZN_5IjhNFSM/1x6tTFmxEgAJ>

Based on reliable facts showing Apple is no more private than anyone else:
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>

This situation is absolutely canonically CLASSIC for how the dynamic works!
1. Apple spends millions advertising (what is, in fact imaginary) privacy
2. Apple Apologists _believe_ (hook line & sinker) in that imaginary belief
3. Facts show privacy on Apple products is no different than anywhere else
4. Not only do the Apologists instantly (brazenly in fact) deny these facts
5. The Apologists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws!

This situation has been repeated for decades, and, as such, is classic!
First - Apple woos susceptible people with admittedly brilliant MARKETING!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

Then, the truth comes out that Apple is no more private than anyone else
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private
recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in
Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>

*Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the apologists' imaginary belief system!*

Such that the Apologists react using the _same_ half-dozen traits

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Where the canonical response by apologists is to blame everyone but Apple!
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/xqZp1CKP/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri>

Notice the pattern?

Essentially, Apple sold privacy to the apologists, but the fact is that
Apple is no more private than anyone else is - and when the apologists find
that out - they BLAME EVERYONE BUT APPLE for Apple being just like
everyone!
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
(since they can't compete on performance)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>

Mere facts instantly destroy Apologists's imaginary belief systems:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>

In summary, it's elucidating to realize this is a classic documentation of
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?

[Arlen Holder]

> Are those the common psychological traits of all the Apple Apologists?

The Apple Apologists Lewis & Jolly Roger proved perfectly today
o That they're so afraid of facts about Apple ...
o That they react with untoward violent vehemence ...
o Toward the bearer of those facts that they simply don't like.

Proof here, where badgolferman posted a reliable cite of facts:
o iphone fold?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jgNBpCXsAj0>

Where that reliable cite came from other reliable sources:
o Apple continues their work on a Flexible / Foldable Device that began in 2011
<https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2019/09/apple-continues-their-work-on-a-flexible-foldable-device-that-began-in-2011.html>

Which themselves, came from the US Patent Office (as reliable as it gets).
<http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220190278422%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20190278422&RS=DN/20190278422>

And yet, the two classic Apple Apologists, Jolly Roger & Lewis
o Brazenly denied these facts ...
o Simply because ... they don't like them.

What's fantastic is the apologists consistently prove their half dozen
traits are consistently repeated ad infinitum each time they post their
vehement hatred of facts, simply because facts destroy the imaginary belief
system Apple Marketing has (rather cleverly) built up in their child-like
minds (which is why they gravitate to and defend and make excused for Apple
products).

FACTS:

Lewis:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jgNBpCXsAj0/wRmAwhCAAwAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jgNBpCXsAj0/UZ0lVDeAAwAJ>

Jolly Roger:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jgNBpCXsAj0/YqBOO9KTAwAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 04:24:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> What's fantastic is the apologists consistently prove their half dozen
> traits are consistently repeated ad infinitum each time they post their
> vehement hatred of facts,

Hi badgolferman,

This is long - so only an adult will read it - but it contains adult logic.

As you know, I study the Apple apologists, and, as you know, I've said they
don't act like normal people (which you found out when you had asked if
anyone admits they're wrong - where I clearly showed you adults did - but
not apologists).

What we're seeing here almost nobody will notice - but if you comprehend
what I say below - you'll realize this is a trait of why people purchase
Apple products in the first place.

Bear in mind, this concept I explain below may be above 99% of the people
who read this post - but that doesn't negate that people who buy Apple
products don't delve deeply into the actual facts of the matter - just as
JR and Lewis didn't - and worse ....

People who buy Apple products tend to read a DIFFERENT MESSAGE than the
actual facts show (e.g., nospam's hilarious claims of imaginary RAM
performance, or Snit's hilarious claims of imaginary Wi-Fi functionality,
or Alan Baker's hilarious claims that Apple pulled a fast one on Qualcomm,
etc.).

NOTE: This list of hilarious claims of imaginary functionality by the Apple
apologists goes on and on (as you well know, badgolferman); so there MUST
be a reason that Apple Apologists can't comprehend basic facts and then
tehy can't form a logical assessment of those facts.

THIS FORBES RTHREAD IA A PERFECT EXALE OF THAT APOLOGISTS' TRAIT
o Not only did the apologist NOT comprehend what the forbes article said
o But the apologists didn't even logically assess any of the facts

Lewis & JR didn't like the facts you cited simply because facts tend to
destroy their imaginary belief system that Apple marketing (admittedly
brilliantly) crafted for them to believe.

Even nospam, who isn't anywhere nearly as fantastically unfathomably dumb
as most apologists, apparently read more into the Forbes article than the
facts show.

For example, nospam repeatedly claimed that a mere patent application
(actually, in this case, a continuance of a long string of similar patent
applications by Apple) is meaningless in terms of accurately predicting
future product - which is patently true....

However...

Everyone claiming that Forbes "said" that Apple is producing a folding
phone seems to have misunderstood what Forbes literally said.

Just like all the apologists (and even intelligent non-apologists like
Steve) misunderstood the fiduciary ramifications of Apple's surrender to
Qualcomm, these people don't have the intelligence to actually COMPREHEND
what the Forbes article actually said.

I posit this tendency of the apologists to "guess" (wrongly most of the
time) as to what someone says, is exactly why they intensely gravitate to
Apple marketing messaging.

Apple KNOWS THIS!
o Apple isn't stupid.

Apple gives these types of people the PERFECTELY CRAFTED marketing message
(Such as the RAM handling is better or the privacy is better.)

And then these people who gravitate to bogus marketing - eat it up.

The claims in this thread by Lewis, Jolly Roger, & nospam support that.
o They can't comprehend the facts of what was ACTUALLY said
o They simply "guess" as to what the Forbes article said

And - predictably - consistently - hilariously ...
o They guess wrong.

The proof that they guessed wrong is simply to ask them an adult question.

If they feel the Forbes article mistated a fact, then here's the test:
o Name just one

That is, if they feel Forbes told a fib, all they have to do is...
o Name just one

That is, name just one fib that Forbes told in that article
o Name just one

Notice the simplest test of an imaginary belief system is...
o Name just one

They can't name a single fact in that article that Forbes got wrong.
o What is wrong is their GUESS of what forbes said

Not what forbes actually said.
o Their hatred for Forbes colored their logical assessment.

And yet, they can't find a single fact in that article that is wrong
o What does that say about the belief system of the known apologists?

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:42:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the typical iOS
> poster on this newsgroup?

Perfectly proving the traits of the Apple Apologists is this thread today,
where nospam, a well know Apple Apologist, again fails the simplest of test
of imaginary belief systems...
o Name just one.

The apologists consistently fail this test of imaginary belief systems.
o Name just one

See details in:
o Camera quality of output summary scores for the top 50 as rated by individually detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/zlLZAq-YHK0>

Specifically the "name just one" challenge of imaginary belief systems:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/zlLZAq-YHK0/_lLb1DL6BgAJ>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-09-19 10:35 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:42:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the typical iOS
>> poster on this newsgroup?
>
> Perfectly proving the traits of the Apple Apologists is this thread today,
> where nospam, a well know Apple Apologist, again fails the simplest of test
> of imaginary belief systems...
> o Name just one.

What are you talking about?

>
> The apologists consistently fail this test of imaginary belief systems.
> o Name just one

"Name just one"... ...what?

>
> See details in:
> o Camera quality of output summary scores for the top 50 as rated by individually detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/zlLZAq-YHK0>
>
> Specifically the "name just one" challenge of imaginary belief systems:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/zlLZAq-YHK0/_lLb1DL6BgAJ>
>

Where you ignore his factual statements and go for the purely subjective?

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:39:45 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> Try either with Arlen Holder. Only a kill file works with some.

Hi BK,

FACTS. (Yes, I know you apologists fear facts - that's why I use them.)

The fact is that Lewis said this about Forbes' simple facts:
"Never believe anything on forbes.com,"

And yet, Lewis can't find a _single_ fact that Forbes got wrong.
o Not even one.

Clearly, Lewis owns a completely imaginary belief system.

FACTS:

Then, the facts show, Lewis posted this:
o "Please stop posting links to shit sites"

Notice - Lewis hates Forbes ... but why?
o His claim is that the facts are wrong, right?

And yet, Lewis is the one whose facts are dead wrong.

The facts show that Lewis' response to being told he was dead wrong was
o "I will never stop berating idiots and trolls."

FACTS:

What's utterly hilarious, which is why I LOVE when Lewis posts...
is that Lewis, after being proven dead wrong, then said:
' "You cannot reason with stupid and you cannot compromise with trolls,"

Hehhehheh...
o You can't get any better proof of what apologists are than that!

Apologist literally call all facts they don't like, trolls.
o What will be hilarious is when they call this factual post, a troll.

Why are apologists so obviously deathly afraid of facts?

o I don't know why.

I think it's because facts instantly DESTROY their imaginary belief system.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-09-20 12:36 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:39:45 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>> Try either with Arlen Holder. Only a kill file works with some.
>
> Hi BK,
>
> FACTS. (Yes, I know you apologists fear facts - that's why I use them.)
>
> The fact is that Lewis said this about Forbes' simple facts:
> "Never believe anything on forbes.com,"

No link means you're lying.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:48:56 -0400, nospam wrote:

> the first android phone, which came out *eleven* years ago, did not
> have an analog headphone jack,

Hi badgolferman,

Be careful of the bullshit that nospam consistently spews.
o His claim only applies to an infinitesimally puny percentage of devices

The fact is we proved, long ago, fewer than 1/2 of 1% of all Android phones
o Lacked this basic headphone jack functionality

o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality?
o<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ZjnD2kAf-mI/I3i2jT-mCAAJ>

Where nospam participated in that thread
o So either nospam doesn't remember facts or he conveniently forgets them.

Just like we recently proved nospam was full of shit on iOS RAM efficiency
o iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro battery and RAM capacity revealed
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BsFrAwd_jDo>

What nospam does is what Apple Marketing does - which is cherry pick
o He uses an infinitesimally puny set of examples (of 1/2 of 1 percent!)

And then brazenly makes his claims (based on that 1/2 of 1 percent)!

Which, you have to admit, is a common trait of the Apple apologists

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

[B...@onramp.net]

Like most of your "facts" that one is not necessary...we read it.

Here's some real facts.

1. I wouldn't see your ridiculous crap if no one replied to you.
2. There has never been a post of mine replying to you about anything
Apple, which means that I'm no "apologist". There's no need.
3. What kind of person persists on posting with numerous nym changes?
A despicable, unwanted TROLL.

>Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
>No link means you're lying.

True, but a link wouldn't change that.

[Arlen Holder]

This is yet another proof that the traits described in this thread are
canonical type traits of the Apple Apologists, in this case, of Alan Baker.
o Does iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, & iPhone XR have CPU throttling software
(after "about a year")?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MowwVxafiaQ>

Type-typical trait exemplifying actual example below...

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:59:50 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> The facts are what matter, at least to adults:
>> 1. Apple installs "throttling software" after "about a year" for iPhones
>
> That is false.

Hi Alan Baker,

As usual, the apologizes provide ZERO cites for their beliefs,
o While (yes, I waste my time), I, as an adult, provide actual facts.

What adults say & do, is different from what apologists say & do.
o Adults say logical things when confronted with facts.
o Adults do logical things when people question those facts.

Apologist neither comprehend fact, & apologists brazenly deny facts
o Without ever bothering to even _look_ up the facts in the first place
o Brazenly denying facts, out of hand, sans a shred of reliable evidence.

Which is EXACTLY what you just did, Alan Baker.

FACTS:
o Gizmodo: Apple Just Can't Stop Throttling iPhones
<https://gizmodo.com/apple-just-cant-stop-throttling-iphones-1830124291>
"The tricky thing is that Apple never stopped throttling the
processors ...It just got caught doing it, and then issued an update to iOS
that gave people access to more information ... Apple also responded to
Senator Thune detailing these software updates and claiming that 'iPhone 8,
iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X models include hardware updates that allow a
more advanced performance management system that more precisely allows iOS
to anticipate and avoid an unexpected shutdown.' Apple didnˇt explicitly
say that newer devices wouldn't get throttled."

"Perhaps as a result, the processor-throttling detail is sort of buried
in the release notes for iOS 12.1. Near the bottom of a long list and under
the header "Other improvements and fixes," the document reads:
Adds a performance management feature to prevent the device
from unexpectedly shutting down, including the option to
disable this feature if an unexpected shutdown occurs,
for iPhone X, iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus."

>> 2. Apple actually throttles the phones, after "about a year" of battery use
>
> As is this.

Alan Browne,

An adult does two things you apologists don't seem to do all that much
o Adults comprehend basic facts
o Adults don't brazenly deny basic facts (that are easily proven)

Apologist do both:
a. Apologists don't seem to comprehend even the most basic of facts
b. Worse, apologists brazenly deny facts even those Apple admitted

o Apple Faces Yet Another Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Secretly Throttling' Older iPhones
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/01/iphone-throttling-lawsuit/>
"Apple introduced the performance management system in iOS 10.2.1, but it
did not initially mention the change in the update's release notes.
Likewise, in a statement issued a month later, Apple still only mentioned
vague "improvements" resulting in a significant reduction in unexpected
iPhone shutdowns."

"Apple only revealed exactly what the so-called "improvements" were after
Primate Labs founder John Poole visualized that some iPhone 6s and iPhone 7
devices suddenly had lower benchmark scores starting with iOS 10.2.1 and
iOS 11.2 respectively, despite operating at maximum performance on previous
versions."

>> That's not a hard and fast rule, in so much that even Apple will claim:
>> o "throttling software isn't _as_ necessary" on the newer iPhone variants
>>
>> But the MAIN ADULT TAKEAWAY from this thread is the PREDICTION that
>> o Apple will add throttling software for the iPhone XR, Max, & XS (soon).
>
> Nope. Batteries will age and if they run down too low, the software that
> is already installed will throttle the CPU.

This is another place you apologists are not like normal adults.
o You BELIEVE the utter bullshit that Apple marketing cleverly spews

FACTS:

Only Apple iPhones, not iPads, (and only iPhones after the 6!) seem to
require secret, permanent, and utterly drastic CPU degradation software
(don't forget it's often HALF THE CPU speed for Christ' sake).

FACT:
You apologists blame anyone but Apple for the fact that Apple secretly
introduces permanent and utterly drastic CPU throttling, without telling
ANYONE, and essentially lying to Congress after they got caught, and lying
to everyone about telling them (where they changed the release notes AFTER
THE FACT for heaven's sake).

FACT:
It's a basic trait of you apologists to blame everything & everyone but
Apple for Apple's marketing decisions, where all the iPhones after the
iPhone 6 (including the latest iPhone 11 for Christ sake!) series, has some
sort of throttling that REDUCES performance (via an iOS update AFTER the
initial release).

>>
>> Bearing in mind most (if not all) my predictions have come to fruition,
>> o My credibility on comprehension of facts, you have to admit, is 100%
>
> Nope. He doesn't. Because it isn't.

Hehhehheh... look at this TheVerge article I just found for nospam:
o The iPhone XS and XR will get processor throttling feature with iOS 13.1
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/20/20875708/apple-processor-throttling-iphone-xs-xr-ios-13-1>

Since I'm an adult, with adult cognitive skills, I'll _wait_ to see
reliable reports backing up what TheVerge said - but - it's proof yet again
that reasonable adults can easily find cites that back up their view.

Apologists tend to only find Apple marketing that backs up their view.
o Which is kind of funny when you think about it that way


>> For example, just look at the idiocy apologists spewed about Qualcomm
>> o Apple literally gave away their shirt, to settle with them
>
> No, they did not.

Hi Alan Baker,

You're an apologist, and you are one of whom I was talking about.

So for you to brazenly deny what you did, is pretty much the canonical act
of an apologist.
o Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple consumer)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU>

But you're not the only apologist who brazenly denies similar facts
o Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel radio chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js>
>
>> o Where the apologists insisted that Apple "wasn't worried".
>>
>> Another example is the fact that iOS is an untested scheduled release
>
> Also false.

Alan Baker,

Yet, again, you apologists consistently prove out two maxims:
1. You can't comprehend even the most basic of simple facts
2. You brazenly deny them anyway - sans a single reference cite

Here's where adults ASSESS facts, Alan Baker
o The assessment of facts clearly shows iOS is not sufficiently tested

FACTS:
o Google exposed that Apple advertises the mere illusion of iOS security.

o Apple does not test iOS sufficiently for security holes.
"The root causes [in numerous Apple iOS security holes] are not novel
... we see cases of [iOS] code which seems to have never worked, [iOS] code
that likely skipped QA or likely had little testing or review before [iOS
was] shipped to users."
<https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>

"TAG was able to collect five separate, complete and unique iPhone
exploit chains, covering almost every version from iOS 10 through to the
latest version of iOS 12."
<https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>

Apple does not (& can not) dispute ANY of the facts of the vulnerabilities!
o Nor that Google proved Apple does not test iOS diarrhea sufficiently!

"Also missing from Apple's statement is any response to the blistering
criticism the Project Zero report made of Apple development process,
which the report alleges missed vulnerabilities that in many cases should
have been easy to catch with standard quality-assurance processes."
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/apple-takes-flak-for-disputing-ios-security-bombshell-dropped-by-google/>

There are SO MANY FACTS LIKE THIS, Alan, which adults can assess:
o Google Project Zero reveals six ¨interactionless〃 bugs that can affect iOS via Appleˇs iMessage
<https://hub.packtpub.com/google-project-zero-reveals-six-interactionless-bugs-that-can-affect-ios-via-apples-imessage/>

Facts, that iOS us insufficiently tested which even Apple did NOT dispute
o Apple simply didn't like the "way" Google said their facts.

o Apple accuses Google of 'stoking fear' over iPhone security issues
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/6/20853115/apple-google-iphone-security-flaw-uighur-community-fud>

Adults can easily find reliable sites agreeing with their viewpoint
o The stakes are too high for Apple to spin the iPhone exploits
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/6/20853393/apple-iphone-ios-exploits-statement-security-google-false-impressions>

Yet, apologists, can only find APPLE MARKETING agreeing with them!
o Cleverly calling all 14 exploits a single memory corruption issue
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209520>

While adults can find plenty of cites that back up their assessment
o Apple statement alienates the security community when the company needs it most.
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/apple-takes-flak-for-disputing-ios-security-bombshell-dropped-by-google/>

>> o Where MANY FACTS prove Apple cares far more about schedule
>> o Than about quality, security, or privacy
>
> Assertions: not facts.

Alan Baker,
You can deny the fact that iOS is insufficiently untested.
o Yet, the facts PROVE that, beyond any doubts from adults

The only people who AGREE with you, Alan Baker, are
o Apologists
o Apple Marketing

Nobody else agrees with your assertion, Alan Baker.
o Nobody.

Yet we all agree that Apple ships iOS on schedule.
o Even when it contained Broadcom bugs so huge Apple had to DESTROY the
release only ten days after millions of people installed it.

Those are facts, Alan Baker.
o Apple had the fix in hand
o And yet, they STILL shipped the release, on schedule
o Begging people to upgrade to the fixes only 10 days later
o And DESTGROYING th release so that it no longer existed.

You can dispute those facts until the cows come home, Alan Baker
o But the fact apologists hate facts doesn't change the fact they're facts.


>> HINT: Google proved iOS was untested for YEARS, which Apple couldn't deny.
>
> Nope. Google didn't prove anything of the kind.

Jesus Christ, you apologists are like children.

FACTS:
"Also missing from Apple's statement is any response to the blistering
criticism the Project Zero report made of Apple's development process,
which the report alleges missed vulnerabilities that in many cases should
have been easy to catch with standard quality-assurance processes."
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/apple-takes-flak-for-disputing-ios-security-bombshell-dropped-by-google/>


>> WORSE: I've been proving that for years - with simple facts.
>> Which only the apologists attempt to brazenly deny.
>>
>> Simply mark my words that I can COMPREHEND the facts
>> o Such as the fact Tim Cook said that he was going to try to "hide" the
>> price of the iPhone from the customers ...
>
> Quote and cite please.

I love that the apologists brazenly dispute facts that are well known!
o Apologists brazenly dispute any fact they simply don't like.

But the fact apologists hate facts doesn't change the fact they're facts!

o *Anyone can hack into MacOS High Sierra simply by typing "root"!*
<https://www.wired.com/story/macos-high-sierra-hack-root/>

o *Making sense of the many Apple security flaws*
<https://www.wired.com/story/apples-security-macos-high-sierra-ios-11/>

o *An astounding list of security vulnerabilities found in Apple software*
<https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2017/5/15/the-may-2017-apple-security-update-review>

o *Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

*o New Mac Malware steals iPhone text messages from iTunes backups*
<https://www.hackread.com/mac-malware-steals-iphone-text-messages-from-itunes-backups/>

o *Easter Attack Affects Half a Billion Apple iOS Users via Chrome Bug*
<https://threatpost.com/easter-attack-apple-ios/143901/>
etc.

>
>> And then I can predict the future based on the prior actions of Apple.
>>
>> Mark my words:
>> o I predict Apple will add throttling software to the iPhone XS, Max, & XR
>
> And you're already wrong.

Hehhehheh...

What I love is how apologigist call everything they don't like, "wrong"...

And yet, adults easily find these supporting cites Apologists can't find!

o iOS 13.1 Cuts Fast Charging Support to Multiple Wireless Chargers
<https://www.chargerlab.com/ios-13-1-cuts-fast-charging-support-to-multiple-wireless-chargers/>

o The iPhone XS and XR will get processor throttling feature with iOS 13.1
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/20/20875708/apple-processor-throttling-iphone-xs-xr-ios-13-1>

--
What's amazing is that apologists are wholly unlike normal adults.

[Arlen Holder]

As you know, I've been studying apologists for many years
o Where I try to figure out why they do the strange things they do.

I think I figured out WHY they hate facts - just now.
o Look at this response to Alan Baker - who hated iPhone 11 camera facts.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 19:38:27 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Fact: the overal conclusion about the iPhones was positive.

Hi Alan Baker,

The summary by the testers who ran the test is what matters.
o As with DXO Mark - the summary score of detailed tests is what matters.

You don't like facts - but that doesn't change the facts they're facts.

If you do not "like" that factual summary, then please take it up with
nospam, who referred me to the article, and if you still don't like that
factual summary, then I suggest you take it up with the editors at TheVerge
- since the fact is that the summary I posted is verbatim what TheVerge
wrote in the article nospam asked me (twice even) to read.

It's clear you apologists hate facts
o What is not clear is WHY you apologists hate facts

Why do you apologists consistently prove that you are immune to facts?

o I don't know why.

I think it's because actual facts conflict with what Apple marketing spews.
o For example, Apple Marketing tells you iOS 13 is great quality, I'm sure.

Since even the Department of Defense had to warn people to stay away from
iOS 13, I think it "bothers" you apologists that the facts conflict with
what Apple Marketing told you about iOS 13.

Is that why you hate facts so much Alan Baker?
o Because facts conflict with what Apple marketing spews out?

[Alan Baker]

'But after using an iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max for the past
week, I think they’re more than the sum of several lightly updated
parts. These are some of the most well-balanced, most capable phones
Apple — or anyone — has ever made. They have excellent battery life,
processors that should keep them relevant for years to come, absolutely
beautiful displays, and a new camera system that generally outperforms
every other phone, which should get even better with a promised software
update later this fall.

Yes, they’re expensive. And yes, I think most people should probably buy
an iPhone 11, which has most of the same features, including the same
basic camera system, for $300 less. But if you want to pay more to have
the best display and the best camera, the iPhone 11 Pro is worth the
premium over the iPhone 11.'

[Arlone Trolder]

You ain't nothin' but a troll's food
Bitin' all the time
You ain't nothin' but a troll's food
Bitin' all the time
Well, you ain't gonna kick the habit
And you're hooked on its fishin' line.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:08:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-09-28 7:59 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>

>> ba itca nne dba itmo recan ne dbai tmor ebait?
>> o baitcan nedba itmoreca nned bait canne dbaitmore baitb ait?
>>
>
> 'FEE DTROL LFEED TR OLLAGA IN FEE DTR OLLFEE DT ROL FEE DTR OLL FEED
> FEED, T ROLLF EEDT'RO LLAG AINF EED TRO LL FEEDTRO LLAGAIN FEEDING
> FEEDT. ROLLF EED TROL LA GAI NFEE DTRO-LLFEEDTR, OLLA GAINFEE DTROLL
> FEEDT - RO LLFEED - TRO LLAG AINF. EEDT ROLL FEEDTROLL FEEDTRO LLER.
> FEEDTROLLF EEDT ROLLAG AINF EEDT ROLLFEED TRO LLAGA IN FEED, TROLLAGAIN
> FEEDTROLL FEEDTROL, LAG A INF EEDTRO LLFEED TROL LAGAINFEE DTROLLAGAIN
> FEEDT ROLLF EEDTR, OLLAG AINFEE DTR OLLF EEDTRO LLAG A INFEEDTR OLLAGAIN
> FEEDTR OLLER FEED FEED.
>
> FEE, DTRO'LL FEEDTROLL. FEE DTR, O LLFEE DTRO LLAGAI NFEEDT ROLLINGF EED
> FE EDTROL LF, EEDTR OLL AGAI NF EED TROL LFEEDTRO, LLAGAINFE EDT ROLL
> FEEDT ROLLFE EDTROL, LER FEED FEED. FEE DT ROL LFEE DT ROL LAGA IN FEED
> FEE DTRO LLFEEDT ROL LAG AINF EEDTRO, LLF EEDTRO LL AGA IN FEEDT ROLL
> FEEDTRO LLFE EDT ROLLFE ED.'


Food, glorious food
Flesh picked from the baited
Gulped swallowed or chewed
Soon we'll be the sated
Just thinking of fish who bite
Puts us in a mood for
Food, glorious food, marvelous food, fabulous food, beautiful food,
Magical food,
Glorious food!

[Arlen Holder]

One of the common traits of the Apple Apologists...
o Is that they have no adult response to facts.

Why?

o I don't know why.

I think it may be facts conflict with what Marketing fed them to believe.
o Facts instantly DESTROY what Marketing has cleverly fed them to believe!

Just LOOK at how the apologists turn into instant children...
o In the face of something as simple as a mere fact they didn't like.

o Confirmed: Windows 10 Setup Now Prevents Local Account Creation
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ry66ZY9Yxq8/t_DYWbgnAAAJ>

o Google adds the ability to automatically store & manage device backups through Google One (via subscription)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/v6S1AFFLr0c/2yljamPBBQAJ>

o Google proved Apple accidentally forgot to test for even basic security/privacy in iOS 10 to 12 for over two years
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gM5ioMg9m8w/ShP49TGnAwAJ>

o FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Gb1s44Hlhbo/au-UDERCCgAJ>

o How do I copy my smartphone photos to my computer?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/KSnVG4RvjlA/COo1anzYBQAJ>

o Is there any software functionality in the new iPhone 11 that isn't already in an average 5-year old Android phone?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1D2Sgdlz1-I/TDR5TlmbAQAJ>

o Phone suggestions wanted.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/_qKdRmE21tY/jWGx2WijAAAJ>

o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/A7i2RM1V_tg/3Zn2rWgmCgAJ>

o Apple is officially upset Google exposed the imaginary security Apple widely promotes (blaming Google for the iOS diarrhea)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/C54BNBxZKN8/BhaujUZ1AgAJ>

o Is there any software functionality in the new iPhone 11 that isn't already in an average 5-year old Android phone?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/WSvAnsmqmlY/vRXgqhPZAgAJ>

o How does one upload voice memo recording to a web site directly from an iPhone?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lXUWgJT-vWc/ow3v7Hv7BgAJ>

o iphone cancellation
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/I9ihCEBqs9A/1iUh5kZbCAAJ>

o Contractors in Cork, Ireland, were expected to each listen to more than 1,000 recordings from Siri every shift - without Apple users' knowledge.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/n2O1TywAeGQ/oZCNoXkoAwAJ>

o Don't ever trust anything that Apple says in their release notes
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/vouXWs6ywo0/j_jZoVNMAAAJ>

o Apple's delay may indicate QA found long-standing super-serious facetime flaws
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1V5tFA1OQ0w/wA4sJfEoAQAJ>

o iPhone XR vs iPhone 11
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/I0pR6X-NACk/75AXeHdTAQAJ>

o Multiple reports confirm Apple iPhones still way behind Android in camera quality of results
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4XihK9DoVFs/fNpckP89AgAJ>

o iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro battery and RAM capacity revealed

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BsFrAwd_jDo/rXcV3voBAgAJ>

o Are you disappointed that iPhone 11s don't have 5G support?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ltMY-g4Dm5U/clph8c_kBgAJ>

o iOS 13.1.1
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sjqzLKMaplo/Z37BBoHaCQAJ>

o The 'Checkm8' exploit isn't a big deal to iPhone or iPad users, and here's why
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cwlXKVyQfT4/_8R1bfiECgAJ>

The references go on and on proving you respond to facts you don't like
o By turning into an instant child in response to those facts

Why?

o I don't know why.

I think Apologists are deathly afraid of mere facts simply because...
o Facts are the antithesis of what marketing cleverly fed you to believe.

The fact nospam doesn't like facts doesn't change the fact they're facts.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

We've proven the Apple Apologists don't have an adult response to facts

Where...

We may need to add an additional common trait of Apple Apologists
o Selective Amnesia

The post sequence below shows that the Apple Apologists demand proof of
what has been discussed many times in the past, with temporal cites.
o Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display
lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/_VmelACbiHo/2iwj7gKLEAAJ>

Here's the "realization post" where the selective amnesia trait arose:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/_VmelACbiHo/04YH0zuSEAAJ>

In short, we may need to add "selective amnesia" to the common apologist
reaction to facts that they simply don't like.

--
Bringing TRUTH & ADULT LOGIC to the Apple newsgroups, one fact at a time.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:24:36 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:

> That doesn't matter to Arlen -- if they're not perfect, they're shit.

Hi Barry Margolin,

I'm highly educated (never forget that); which means I know your game.

I have studied you Apple apologists over quite a number of years.
o You apologists _interest_ me ... because you're not like normal people.

*It appears you child-like apologists are DEATHLY AFRAID of mere facts.*
a. Apple marketed imaginary privacy & imaginary functionality to you
b. You paid dearly to attain that imaginary safety & functionality
c. Hence, any facts proving otherwise, you treat as a dire mortal threat

Apologists only have seven basic responses to facts they just don't like:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

*On this newsgroup most people have absolutely no adult response to facts.*
o Whether you comprehend facts will be based on _your_ cognitive skills.

Despite you proving otherwise just now, I will still graciously assume that
you are an adult, which means I assume, a priori, you can cognitively
process facts like an adult should; but the fact that you post to this
newsgroup, and the fact you make utterly baseless claims, my belie that
basic assumption that you own the cognitive skills to process basic facts.

First, take a look at what actual adults post, on the Android newsgroup:
o What do YOU use for your todo/tobuy lists and why do you like that app?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/GVnN_bnHzGk/L4WYx8T2AQAJ>

*NOTICE WHAT's HUGELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS POSTED ON APPLE NEWSGROUPS?*

HINT:
o Adults
o Facts

Please do NOT respond to this post UNTIL/UNLESS you skim what adults write!

That's what a "normal" thread is like, on a newsgroup comprised of adults.
o They speak facts; they process facts; they discuss facts like adults do.

I've always wondered why Apple newsgroup threads are nothing like that.

On this newsgroup, people make up imaginary functionality all the time!
o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s/BNYMDpdXEgAJ>

On this newsgroup, people have absolutely no adult response to facts:
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

On this newsgroup, people literally HATE FACTS about Apple products!
o Why do apologists on this ng consistently hate facts about Apple products
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6OecwGrr4FM/pxffpfr3CQAJ>

People on this newsgroup turn into instant children when faced with facts:
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

Worse, people on this newsgroup are sadistic when they play their games.

o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>

Why are Apple newsgroups filled with people who act like children?

o I don't know why.

Given Apple's competitive advantage is their marketing is one of the best
in the world, I suspect people who buy Apple products are EXTREMELY HIGHLY
swayed by marketing bullshit.

Apple marketing feeds the user's brain with imaginary functionality
o Where those who post to this newsgroup are particularly susceptible

For example, they line up outside the store on opening day because they
can't wait a week or a month to ditch their old iPhone at the first
opportunity they get (usually at about 2 years) to buy the "latest model".

As another example, they are HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE to the intense need to
"feel" safe, where Apple marketing bullshit about privacy & security
RESONATES GREATLY with them.

Where the mere fact that iOS releases constantly, makes them _feel_ safe!
o When apologists claim iOS is "safer" than Android simply because of the "frequency" of release...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WzRDeuHmQoc/QGt-UNkADAAJ>

In addition, they actually believe, sans even a single shred of factual
proof, that the iOS ecosystem is, somehow (magically?) more functional,
than the competing ecosystem, even as they can _never_ once prove their
claims of imaginary functionality when challenged with "name just one".

The very fact that the posters to this newsgroup almost always fail (if not
always) the simplest "name just one" test of imaginary belief systems,
proves this to be a fact.

Now the question becomes WHY do apologists know so little about iOS?

o I don't know why.

It's either apologists only know what marketing has fed them to believe
Or, Apologists are always playing silly little childish sadistic games.

I think it's both.

Then the question comes WHY would you people be so childish so frequently?

o I don't know why.

I think facts literally DESTROY in an instant your entire belief system.
o It's like me telling a child that Santa Claus isn't real.

You child-like apologists react to facts exactly as that child would.
o And yet, they're just facts.

It appears you apologists are DEATHLY AFRAID of mere facts.
a. Apple marketed imaginary privacy & imaginary functionality
b. You paid dearly to attain that imaginary safety & functionality
c. Hence, facts proving otherwise, you treat as a mortal threat

--
Imaginary belief systems are easily threated by something as simple as fact

[Arlen Holder]

*The Apologists consistently prove they have no _adult_ response to facts.*

Yet again, the Apple apologist nospam clearly turned into an instant child
simply because it was easily proven that Apple lied twice this week on the
ultra wideband technology privacy fiasco:
o Apple lied. Again. Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog/PhBfivWHAAAJ>

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 18:33:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> There wasn't just one lie by me.
>> o There were _two_ easily proven lies by me this week!
>
> ftfy.
>
> actually, there was a non-stop barrage of lies, as there are every
> week, but admitting to two of them is a start.

Why do apologists repeatedly and predictably turn into instant fifth
graders whenever they are confronted with facts they simply do not like?

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face
of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

The apologists have only 7 responses to facts, _none_ of which are adult:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

*The Apologists consistently prove they have no _adult_ response to facts.*
--
Apologists prove, by what they write, to not own an adult brain that is
comprehensive of even the most simple of basic facts; hence they turn into
instant fifth-grade children, when confronted with facts they simply don't
like.

[Arlen Holder]

For the permanent Usenet record, there's another classic case, just today,
of the apologists repeatedly brazenly refuting well-published facts,
without even _once_ reading the cites containing those facts.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog/sQFVww-cAAAJ>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:42:13 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> The fact you're _immune_ to facts is clear, Alan Baker.
>>
>> What part of "it violates Apple's own privacy policy" don't you comprehend?
>>
>
> Quote...
>
> ...it.

Alan,

Do you even realize what you just proved (again)?

You are repeatedly brazenly disputing a fact, and yet, that fact is in the
cites, which, clearly, you never read!

That's unbelievable.
o No adult does what you are doing.

None.

*You're proving that you didn't even _read_ the cites?*
o *And yet, you brazenly dispute them.*

It's classic for you apologists.
a. You're utterly immune to facts, and, yet,
b. You brazenly dispute these facts (that you're utterly immune to).

It's classic behavior and one of the 7 traits of Apple Apologists:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

--
Apologists brazenly dispute facts without ever bothering to _read_ the
cites containing the facts that the apologists brazenly refute!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-12-07 10:12 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> For the permanent Usenet record, there's another classic case, just today,
> of the apologists repeatedly brazenly refuting well-published facts,
> without even _once_ reading the cites containing those facts.
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog/sQFVww-cAAAJ>

1. That doesn't point to a specific post, but to an entire thread.

Here is what a Google Groups link to a specific post looks like:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog/Pdp32xecAAAJ>

2. It is not my job to comb through your cites looking for what you
claim is there. It is your job to quote the salient portions. That's the
way it works:

Quote of material, then reference to where the material came from.

3. In order to find the actual quotes of Apple's privacy policy were not
found in your original link from the first post of that thread:

'Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/apple-explains-mysterious-iphone-11-location-requests/>'

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog/huDUm-pAAAAJ>

That KrebsOnSecurity article doesn't contain any quotes from Apple's
security policy. So I had to click on the link to the earlier article
they'd written:

<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

5. That link DOES have quotes from Apple's security policy, but what it
quotes doesn't agree with your interpretation of that policy:

'The privacy policy available from the iPhone’s Location Services screen
says, “If Location Services is on, your iPhone will periodically send
the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers (where
supported by a device) in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple, to
be used for augmenting this crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and
cell tower locations.”'

So note that "Location Services" is only on if the iPhone is sending
data to Apple.

Sending data off the phone is a PART of what makes up "Location Services".

Ergo, no data sent off the phone means that Location Services were not
really on in the first place.

You lose.

[Arlen Holder]

Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided, and worse, why
do apologists like nospam post links that they didn't even READ themselves?

Time and again, I run into this situation with Apple apologists:
a. Apologists like Alan Baker don't even _read_ the links they dispute.
b. Apologists like nospam post links that they themselves didn't read.

Why?

o I don't know why.

I think it could be simply that apologists aren't used to dealing with
adults who _read_ the cites provided & who comprehend what they say.

In the first case (a), this week, Alan Baker repeatedly brazenly denied
facts that are well cited, where it's clear that Alan Baker denies those
facts without ever even once _reading_ the cites that proved the facts he
brazenly denies!
o Apple lied. Again. Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog/JzqrG33TAAAJ>

In the second case (b), this week, Jolly Roger made a claim he couldn't
substantiate with facts, where, I disproved that claim with a single cite
from a simple search, where nospam retorted with a handful of cites, all
but one of which nospam clearly didn't even _read_ the cites he posted,
since they had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the claim.
o Apple is killing the charging plug on its highest-end phones by 2021, top
analyst predicts
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NXl5qpnELn8/3qhvYKPPAgAJ>

Why do the apologists (a) not read cites, while brazenly denying the facts
contained in the cites, and (b) post cites that they themselves clearly
couldn't have comprehended (since they have nothing to do with the topic)?

I don't know why.

I think, perhaps, apologists aren't used to dealing with people who
actually _read_ the cites and who deal with facts like adults should.

--
Apologists very often prove to be quite different from normal people.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:55:08 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Apple fixing a "problem" for whatever reasons Apple deems good is not
> proof that their privacy policy was violated.
>
> Here is a link to Apple's Privacy Policy:
>
> <https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/>
>
> Please quote the salient (you DO know what "salient" means, right?)
> portion of that document to support your claim that Apple has violated it.

Hi Alan Baker,

Regarding this thread today...

o Apple lied. Again. Yet another Apple privacy policy lie is exposed.

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/ZmJfUdd7pog>

Normally, I allow apologists like Andreas Rutishauser, Beedle, Chris,
Davoud, Hawk, Your Name, et al. to prove for me my main point for the
adults (if any) on the Apple newsgroups that you Apple apologists are
utterly immune to the most basic of facts, which even Apple admits to.

But you'll do just fine for my purpose of bringing fact & truth to this ng.

Rest assured I appreciate your proof apologists are not like normal people.
a. *Apologists incessantly brazenly deny facts, sans _reading_ any cites!*

And, then, when literally _forced_ to actually _read_ the provided cites...
b. *Apologists constantly prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts in those cites!*

Here's a simple fact you're immune to that was clearly in the original cite!
o The iPhone 11 Pro's Location Data Puzzler
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>
"*The privacy policy _available from the iPhone's Location Services
screen_ says...

Here's a secondary fact you're immune to contained in subsequent cites:
o Apple Issues New Warning For Millions Of iPhone Users [Updated]
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/12/07/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade-privacy-security-ios-13-update/>
"Having claimed it had to follow international regulatory requirements,
the company now says it will enable these background location checks to
be disabled in an upcoming iOS update. Which means they didn't need to
be done in the first place."

Thank you for proving, yet again, just as your apologist compatriots
Eldin/Elfin/Lloyd Parsens (all one and the same), Hemidactylus, Joerg
Lorenz, Johan, joe, John McWilliams, Meanie, Wade Garrett, et al, all have
done many times before you...
a. *Apologists incessantly brazenly deny facts, sans _reading_ any cites!*
b. *Apologists constantly prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts in those
cites!*

The facts reasonably support the logical (if blunt) assessment...
o Apple lied; twice.

Worse ... the facts reasonably logically support the (blunt) assessment:
o Apple cares more about schedule ... than privacy.

Bear in mind, this privacy policy violation was on _top_ of the original
huge privacy issue that Apple _knew_ about way back in July, and _still_
shipped iOS 13 "on schedule" with privacy holes so big you can drive a bus
through them!
o Apple Confirms iOS 13 Location Privacy Bug Impacting Millions Of iPhone Users
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/09/23/apple-confirms-ios-13-location-privacy-bug-impacting-millions-of-iphone-users/>

What you proved, Alan Baker, is that apologists are not like normal people.
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/e5J-nW0hBAAJ>

--
My role on this ng is clearly to bring facts & truth to Apple aficionados.

[Arlen Holder]

Hi Alan,

I do appreciate when you post because my strategic goals are clear
o Expose all you Apple apologists for exactly what you are

These are the score of Apple Apologists who post to this newsgroup:
o Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Ammammata, Andreas Rutishauser, Barry Margolin,
o Beedle, B...@Onramp.net, Chris, Davoud, dpb, Elden,
o Elfin/Lloyd Parsons/Lloyd, Hawk, Hemidactylus, joe, Joerg Lorenz,
o Johan, John McWilliams, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Meanie, nospam,
o Panthera Tigris Altaica, Sandman, Savageduck, Snit, Tim Streater,
o Wade Garrett, Your Name, et al.,

*All you Apple apologists prove to be utterly _immune_ to facts.*
o You prove this fact almost every time you post!

You brazenly deny facts (facts nobody else denies... not even Apple)
(a) Without ever even _reading_ the cites containing those facts, and,
(b) When forced to read the cites, you fail to comprehend what they say!

FACT #1:
o The Krebs report (which broke the news on the ultrawideband technology
flaws) clearly stated the location of the privacy policy that was violated;
nobody disputes this save for you and Jolly Roger (not even Apple).

o The iPhone 11 Pro's Location Data Puzzler
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>

FACT #2:
o The Bagaria Blog (which broke the news on the AirDrop flaws) clearly
stated that it took Kishan all of five minutes using published tools to
find this Apple flaw. Nobody disputes this save for you, Alan Baker. Not
even Apple disputed this (Apple simply begged him to keep it a secret).
o AirDoS: Remotely render any nearby iPhone or iPad unusable
<https://kishanbagaria.com/airdos/>

--
Proving Apologists are utterly immune to facts... one fact at a time.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:23:54 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Given Jolly Roger is the canonical Apple Apologist, those of us who are
> wise should take this post from Jolly Roger as a perfect example of what an
> Apple Apologist truly is.

Why do the Apple Apologists always try to bullshit us?
o Apple apologists' brains are tuned to be utterly immune to factual logic.

Why?

I don't know why.

o Maybe they actually believe their own imaginary functionality?
o Or, maybe they just can't stand the fact that iOS is primitive.

I don't know why Jolly Roger tried to bullshit us just now.
o All I know is that he did (and that he always does).

It doesn't seem the apologists are used to working with _adults_ who
actually read the cites and check the facts that are claimed.

It seems apologists are always immune to facts, in fact, in that they spout
that which even they can't support with facts.

Since the apologists only have 7 responses to fact (none of them adult),
it's a dead giveaway whenever they pull the stunt of posting an
unidentified image off the net sans cites.

Almost always (if not always), when they pull that stunt, it's because it's
a feature that used to exist, or momentarily existed, and no longer does.

Case in post, I checked another of my iPads today in addition to my iOS
11.2.6, which is an iOS 12.4.4 iPad (the grandkids have my third iPad), and
it also says exactly what the iOS 11.2.6 iPad says:
"Enable Dictation? Dictation sends information like your voice input,
contacts, and location to Apple to process your requests."
<https://i.postimg.cc/pXrh2gyP/dictation01.jpg>
o How do you run speech to text transcription offline on iOS?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/V-piSLZ_I3w>

Hence, there are only two possible conclusions about the apologists:
a. Either apologists have absolutely no comprehension of iOS features, or,
b. Apologists are just bullshitting us all the time, all day, every day.
(Pick one.)

Why?

I don't know why.

I suspect Apologists simply _hate_ facts such that they deny them just
because they don't like them.

Maybe apologists are tuned to bullshit, such that they themselves don't
even know how to distinguish between utter bullshit and adult facts?

*Whatever the reason, the apologists, yet again, tried to bullshit us!*

The Apologists brazenly deny facts without even _comprehending_ those
facts, where, even if the offline dictation actually existed in the listed
iOS releases, that feature still does _not_ save the dictation to an audio
file along with the text transcription of that audio file.

To his credit, surprisingly, Alan Baker immediately admonished Jolly Roger
in this post that Jolly Roger's argument was worthless for that purpose:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZfT4EkYIidE/Sbz0W4PJDgAJ>
"To be fair to Liar, the clueless dipshit troll (LTCDT?), he has been
talking about the transcription of previously recorded audio, and
while I've no doubt that the offline capabilities that work while
doing direct dictation could be used with audio files, I don't think
there's actually an interface that would allow you to do it."

Notice that even Alan Baker, of all people, knew Jolly Roger's bullshit.

And yet, Jolly Roger persisted in repeatedly claiming utter bullshit
imaginary functionality which he "claims" exists on iOS, but which I can
instantly prove, as is always the case since I own plenty of iOS devices,
that the apologists are merely bullshitting us, again (and again).

There is good news to this bullshit though... since apologists only have 7
basic responses to facts that they simply hate.

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

I think this event is instructive to help us UNDERSTAND the apologists'
behavior, which is that their brains appear to gravitate to wholly
imaginary completely unproven non existing imaginary functionality.
--
Apple Marketing is brilliant at advertising wholly imaginary functionality!
Apple apologists' brains are tuned to be utterly immune to factual logic.

[Arlen Holder]

o Yet again, apologists Jolly Roger (& Lloyd Parsons & nospam & Your Name
& Lewis) prove to not own adult cognitive skills
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/10dBShPJK9s>

For years, I've studied the quixotic apologists who prove, time and again,
to not appear to adult cognitive skills.

The proof is that Apologists' belief systems are completely imaginary.

Case in point, yet again, these 5 canonical apologists easily prove to
clearly not own adult cognitive skills.
o Jolly Roger
o Lloyd Parsons
o nospam
o YourName
o Lewis

Apologists are not like normal adults when it comes to...
a. Facts
b. Assessment of those facts
c. Forming imaginary belief systems

I think this huge flaw in apologists' cognition is why apologists migrate
so wonderfully to (admittedly brilliant) APPLE MARKETING messaging.

Yet again, it's trivial to show, unlike with normal adults, apologists are
utterly _immune_ to facts - such that their underlying belief systems turn
out almost always to be wholly imaginary (mostly based on APPLE MARKETING
instead of being based on logic, sense, & rational factual assessments).

FACT:
The quintessential Apple apologist, Jolly Roger, posted recently:
o *The 'Checkm8' exploit isn't a big deal to iPhone or iPad users, and here's why*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cwlXKVyQfT4/fXuvPGxTCgAJ>
which the canonical apologists listed above, all mirrored.

ASSESSMENT:
o Trump, Barr, and the FBI do not need Apple to unlock iPhones
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/fbi-does-not-need-apple-to-unlock-terrorists-iphones_id121625>

o iPhone Hacking Firm Updates Tool in Midst of Apple-FBI Spat
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-14/iphone-hacking-firm-updates-tool-in-midst-of-apple-fbi-spat>

Celebrite wrote to its customers this week:
"'For the first time ever, a wealth of previously untapped data sets from
iOS devices can be leveraged to change the course of investigations,'

"'This update allows you to quickly perform a forensically sound
temporary jailbreak and full file system extraction within one streamlined
workflow.'"

"*The tool uses an exploit called _Checkm8_* that allows access to chips
running on iPhones released between 2011 and 2017. Cellebrite... said its
latest version of the tool works with the iPhone 5S, first sold in 2013,
through the iPhone X, sold in 2017."

Yet again, apologists Jolly Roger (& Lloyd Parsons & nospam & Your Name &
Lewis) prove to not own adult cognitive skills.

--
Apologists easily prove to not appear to own adult cognitive skills.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-18 10:17 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> o Yet again, ...

You spam your replies across multiple groups, Liar.

[Arlen Holder]

Regarding this recent purely factual thread, by JF Mezei:
o Bezos hacked by MBS on iPhoneX. Vector?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ozr7WyxrLCM>

Here's more proof that the apologists have only 7 basic responses to fact.
o None of them adult.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 17:01:23 -0000 (UTC), roctl wrote:

> Get a fucking life you fucking loser. Don・t worry about what and why people
> like Apple・s products. Worry about yourself dumb fuck.

Hi "Russian guest" sock of one of the score of Apple apologists,

*I _love_ when you post, because you're a perfect apologist example!*

Notice how _perfectly_ you fit the apologists' canonical mindset?
1. You complain about facts.
2. Specifically, you complain about facts about Apple.
3. Your complaint was based on your complete ignorance of the facts.

Then...
A. I easily proved your complaint was clearly not based on facts.
B. And you respond, instantly, with child-like hate-filled vitriol.

Did you respond with facts supporting your belief system?
o Nope.

Why can't you respond to facts, with facts?
o I don't know why not. (But it's what _adults_ do.)

I suspect you can't simply because your belief system is purely imaginary.
o *Your entire belief system is, literally, based on exactly 0 facts!*

It's a classic (if quixotic) trait of the score of Apple Apologists!

Meanwhile, _adults_ will note that, in this thread:
a. I posted published accurate facts about the Bezos hack.
b. And yet, this Russian "guest" apologists' sock - hates those facts!

The apologist's Russian sock clearly hates them, calling all bearers of
facts roctb doesn't like "fucking losers" and a "dumb fuck", just like Alan
Baker calls all bearers of facts he doesn't like "Liars" filled with
"lies".

*Adults will note this is the typical way the Apologists react to facts.*

It's as if they believe in an imaginary Santa Claus, and, suddenly, they're
told a fact that DESTROYS their wholly imaginary belief system.

They react not by backing up their belief system (which is imaginary).
o These apologists react with _instant_ viciously hateful vitriol.

*That hate-filled vitriol is _aimed_ squarely at the bearer of facts.*

It's one of the 7 responses of the apologists to facts, none of them adult:

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

--
This apologists may as well likely be a mere sock of Jolly Roger or Lewis.

[гость]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Regarding this recent purely factual thread, by JF Mezei:
> o Bezos hacked by MBS on iPhoneX. Vector?
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ozr7WyxrLCM>
>
> Here's more proof that the apologists have only 7 basic responses to fact.
> o None of them adult.
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 17:01:23 -0000 (UTC), roctl wrote:
>
>> Get a fucking life you fucking loser. Don”¦t worry about what and why people
>> like Apple”¦s products. Worry about yourself dumb fuck.
>
> Hi "Russian guest" sock of one of the score of Apple apologists,
>
> *I _love_ when you post, because you're a perfect apologist example!*

Get a life you dumb fucking loser. This is truly all you do all day. What a
fucking loser.

--
Я гость в отеле

[Alan Browne]

Replying to it isn't winning. Just ignore it.

[гость]

I don’t reply to win. I reply because I enjoy it. It’s a journey man. I
love fucking with fucking losers. This dumb fuck makes it so easy. The
ass-hurt on this guy is monumental. What the fuck happened to this dumb
fuck? Mom bought him a $299 Dell and he wanted a Macintosh? Every fucking
post. This guy will be talking to cars and the sky in a couple years. This
is what brain damage looks like kids.

[Rod Speed]

"гость" <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:r0kpak$pt4$1...@dont-email.me...

> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-26 14:13, гость wrote:
>>> Get a life you dumb fucking loser. This is truly all you do all day.
>>> What a
>>> fucking loser.
>>
>> Replying to it isn't winning. Just ignore it.

> I don’t reply to win. I reply because I enjoy it. It’s a journey
> man. I love fucking with fucking losers. This dumb fuck
> makes it so easy. The ass-hurt on this guy is monumental.

> What the fuck happened to this dumb fuck?

He was born that way, ear to ear dog shit.

> Mom bought him a $299 Dell and he wanted a Macintosh?

He's much older than that.

> Every fucking post. This guy will be talking
> to cars and the sky in a couple years.

Nope, he's been like that for a lot longer than that already.

> This is what brain damage looks like kids.

Yes, but he's always been like that. For more than half a century now.

[гость]

Non-stop bullshit. Guy ought to see a doctor. Maybe they can surgically
shut his fucking mouth and help with that ass-hurt.

[Lewis]

In message <r0kocn$k3o$1...@dont-email.me> гость <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Get a life you dumb fucking loser. This is truly all you do all day. What a
> fucking loser.

You're feeding his pathology.

--
In England 100 miles is a long distance. In the US 100 years is a
long time

[гость]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <r0kocn$k3o$1...@dont-email.me> гость <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Get a life you dumb fucking loser. This is truly all you do all day. What a
>> fucking loser.
>
> You're feeding his pathology.
>

Are you kidding me? It’s a self feeding idiot. As someone else just
mentioned, he’s been at it for five years.

[nospam]

In article <r0l5gh$3kv$1...@dont-email.me>, ????? <gh...@mouse-potato.com>

wrote:

> >> Get a life you dumb fucking loser. This is truly all you do all day. What a
> >> fucking loser.
> >
> > You're feeding his pathology.
> >
>

> Are you kidding me? It零 a self feeding idiot. As someone else just
> mentioned, he零 been at it for five years.

*much* longer than that, by his own admission.

[гость]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Here's more proof that the apologists have only 7 basic responses to fact.

Hey Arlen,

What gives? You pretending to have a life or something?

[Rod Speed]

"гость" <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message

news:r0kvmv$1ok$1...@dont-email.me...

No doctor can do a damned thing about his problems.

> Maybe they can surgically shut his fucking
> mouth and help with that ass-hurt.

It isnt arse hurt.

[гость]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <r0l5gh$3kv$1...@dont-email.me>, ????? <gh...@mouse-potato.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Get a life you dumb fucking loser. This is truly all you do all day. What a
>>>> fucking loser.
>>>
>>> You're feeding his pathology.
>>>
>>

>> Are you kidding me? It¹s a self feeding idiot. As someone else just
>> mentioned, he¹s been at it for five years.

>
> *much* longer than that, by his own admission.
>

Guess he’s searching the web for something else to post about Apple.

[гость]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "гость" <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message

>> Maybe they can surgically shut his fucking
>> mouth and help with that ass-hurt.
>
> It isnt arse hurt.
>

Then what?

[Rod Speed]

гость <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> гость <gh...@mouse-potato.com> wrote

>>> Maybe they can surgically shut his fucking
>>> mouth and help with that ass-hurt.

>> It isnt arse hurt.

> Then what?

Like I said, he was born that way.

He does do some useful stuff in person like
clearing tracks with a chainsaw and doing
wifi for his neighbours in a poor cellphone area
but he's been that weird for more than half a
century now, never uses his real name, even
when buying stuff, always uses cash, never
uses a card in any form. Changes his own tires
and does his own wheel alignment etc etc etc.

Even his kids realise what a complete nut case he is.

Changes his usenet id regularly so you cant even
see how long he has been mindlessly trolling for.

[Lewis]

Because people keep engaging with his lunacy.

The only reason he posts here is because he likes it when people reply
to him. And people always do.

--
You Bastard was thinking: ...Delta squared. Thus, dimensional
pressure k will result in a ninety-degree transformation in
Chi(16/x/pu)t for a K-bundle of any three invariables. Or four
minutes, plus or minus ten seconds... The camel looked down at
the great pads of his feet. Let speed equal gallop. --Pyramids

[Arlen Holder]

Below is an astute observation of the "mind" of the classic apologist.

1. They're gullible and therefore highly swayed by Apple Marketing mantra
2. They're ill educated, so they actually know NOTHING about Android
3. Hence, they form belief systems that Apple feeds them without inspection
4. Where apologists are almost always wrong since Marketing isn't fact.

In short, Apple apologists strongly _believe_ in mere Marketing illusions!

This happens all the time on Apple newsgroups, where a canonical example
happened this week, as described below...

Given the assessment of the facts remains there are extremely few Android
phones (two dozen, many of which are no longer made) out of the many
thousands out there, that _don't_ have the headphone jack.
o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality?
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/4qMP9zIt/how-many-of-the-existing-android-phones-lack-headphone-jack-basic-hardware-functionality>

*While _more_ than 99% of all Android models have the essential jack!*
o What's odd is Apple apologists are clueless of this basic fact.

Just this week, for example, on this Android newsgroup, the Apple apologist
Jolly Roger, defending the loss of the headphone jack on iPhones,
righteously loudly proclaimed those who desire headphone jacks (and/or FM
radio) were, in his words a "tiny minority".

See post #10 in this thread (Jolly Roger has a Google Archive removal bit):
o All new iPhones might be forced to have a removable battery (Android too)
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/6jG40cri/all-new-iphones-might-be-forced-to-have-a-removable-battery-android-too#post10>

This is instructive to understand how these strange Apple apologists think:
o Essentially, they think if it isn't on an iPhone, then nobody wants it.
a. If *removable batteries* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
b. If *FM radios* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
c. If *expansion slots* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
d. If *headphone jacks* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
etc.

I must commend Apple marketing for warping these gullible people's minds.

In fact, Apple Marketing has done their job superbly in convincing these
types of gullible people that the iPhone designers made the courageous
decision to give consumers "exactly" what everybody wants.
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>
--
Apple Marketing is well aware those ungodly profits come from utter fools.

[Arlen Holder]

I forgot to add the chargers, which are also the topic of this thread...

o Apologists think if it isn't on an iPhone, then nobody wants it.

a. If *removable batteries* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
b. If *FM radios* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
c. If *expansion slots* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
d. If *headphone jacks* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.

e. If *standard USB cables* aren't on iPhones, then nobody must want them.
etc.

I must commend Apple marketing for warping apologists' minds, given that:
A. Apologists can't discern the difference between fact & Marketing
B. Apologists tend to extremely strongly believe in Marketing _illusions_
C. Apologists exhibit an almost total ignorance of Android functionality

Hence, apologists believe _only_ in what Apple Marketing feeds them.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 14:58:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> As with the batteries, they simply downplay the risk, expense, skill,
> tools, and time it takes to replace their beloved Apple batteries, because
> they don't like the fact that others can do so with the flick of a
> fingernail.

Just as Dunning & Kruger studied the odd mental workings of the lemon-juice
robber...the apologist is not like a normal person either...

I've studied apologists, where a key trait exhibited today in this thread:

o All new iPhones might be forced to have a removable battery (Android too)

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4Ja4FP5eL5s/odJEWVmEBQAJ>

This is very important to note about these apologists.

Whenever they don't like a fact about Apple, they _downplay_ the costs,
where they make arguments that nobody could possibly believe in their
attempt to downplay the costs they accrue compared to us on Android.

Their brazen attempts to artificially claim lowered costs aren't only in
terms of money, but in terms of effort also, as you have seen, in spades,
happen in this thread alone.

Whenever they don't like the fact they can't easily replace batteries, they
artificially downplay the expense, tools, effort, and risk.

They downplay all that because, in fact, they don't like that others can
easily replace a battery with the ease of a flick of their fingernail.

This type of conversation is very common with apologists, who, mind you,

are not like normal people.

For example, nospam always hates that Android has functionality that isn't
on iOS, so, constantly, incessantly so, he brazenly simply _fabricates_ the
missing functionality.

Why?
o I think it's because (I believe) nospam actually _hates_ that iOS lacks
the tons (and tons) of modern functionality that is on even a five year old
Android device.

The examples are never ending where, for example, Jolly Roger tried to
downplay the difficulty of jailbreaking on iOS by claiming an 8 year old
could do it in five minutes.

Does he or nospam or Alan Baker actually believe their claims?
o Absolutely not (of that there is no doubt).

But what they prove is they _hate_ that their beloved system can't do what
we can do easily (e.g., you _can_ root selected Android phones in five
minutes).

In summary, apologists are not like normal people.

Essentially, they underplay the difficulties of being on the Apple
ecosystem because they _hate_ the fact we don't have on the Android
ecosystem the severe limitations of their primitive Apple ecosystem.
--
Apple isn't making those profits off of intelligent customers after all.

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

This is an important update summarizing the odd traits of the apologist,
particularly the tendency of the apologist to hate that they incur costs or
inconvenience such that they severely _downplay_ those costs & efforts when
they're brought up by people who do _not_ incur Apple associated costs.

They even go so far as to brazenly deny even the most well known facts!

On Sun, 01 Mar 2020 07:53:55 -0500, Wolffan wrote:

>> To the point of this thread, given you must prematurely replace the iPhone
>> battery about once every year or two (or endure throttling or instability),
>
> false.

Just as Dunning & Kruger studied the strange mind of the lemon-juice bank
robber, I've studied the strange mind of apologists such as Wolffran.

Hence, I thank Wolffan for claiming that the known facts are false because
it helps further understand how the strange mind of the apologists works.

Essentially, Wolffan simply denies any & all facts he simply doesn't like.
o It's a common trait of apologists to deny (or minimize) the facts.

Normally, they claim "Lies by liars", to deny facts that don't fit into
their belief system, as easily proven in the cites of this thread below:
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4/obuCXB1nAgAJ>

Also, they normally brazenly deny facts they don't like, even those facts
which Apple clearly admits to (e.g., Apple lawyers clearly admitted to the
crime of secretly shortening the life of iPhones, as reported here):
o Apple agrees to pay 25 million euros fine as Apple admits "Apple
committed the crime of deceptive commercial practice by omission"
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>

It's quite common for apologists to deny fact that even Apple admits to:

o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/e5J-nW0hBAAJ>

And therefore, I'm not surprised that this common Apple apologist who today
goes by the name "Wolffan", simply denies facts that don't fit into his
imaginary belief system.

I don't really know how to better characterize these people other than to
make the analogy that their mind is like that of a fifth-grade bully who is
told by someone the simple fact that Santa Claus, while highly marketed,
doesn't really exist.

Apologists (as Wolffram clearly is) would claim that Santa Claus does
exist, simply because that's exactly what Marketing fed them to believe.

As shown in this thread, Apple apologists are quite unlike normal people.
o It boils down to the fact they _hate_ their iPhones' huge limitations!

Hence, they artificially _downplay_ every limitation that is pointed out.

For example, they not only deny facts, but habitually fabricate what they
are clearly missing on the iPhone:
o Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary
content, simply because they _hate_ the fact they can't have that content!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY/fDk0k8KAAwAJ>

As another example, when it's clear to them that a user asks for something
simple that is impossible to do on iOS, they simply send that user on a
fruitless wild goose chase by, again, fabricating functionality that simply
does not exist.
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users
on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>

If a reasonable person brings up something that doesn't work on Apple, they
immediately claim that person is "down" on Apple, simply for speaking
logically and truthfully!
o What to tell Apple Apologists who claim anyone who speaks facts is "down
on Apple" (i.e., they conflict with Apple Marketing)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/z7HCl4tm71E/VYspnX8wBAAJ>

The fact they hate facts about Apple is why they claim all cites either
don't exist, or that the cites don't say what the cites clearly say,
without ever even once clicking on those cites to read what they say!
o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided, and worse, why

do apologists like nospam post links that they didn't even READ themselves?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>

The fact they _think_ Apple is better than the rest, and yet, when told the
facts that Apple is no different in terms of flaws, they _always_ blame the
other entities for flaws that they _hate_ in Apple itself!
o Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple
for Apple's poor design choices?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>

All this hate they _they_ feel, is why they turn into children in the fact
of facts, which is easily proven, time and time again, is how they handle
facts which never fit into their purely imaginary belief systems:
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face
of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>
--
The mind of an Apple apologist is unnaturally filled with hatred.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 05:42:16 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Call this "recycling" is optimistic at best and greenwashing at worst.
>
> i read it, and it's clear you aren't familiar with apple's recycling
> efforts.

This explanation below is for the _adults_ on this newsgroup only.

I've studied these apologists for years, and hence I consider myself (IMHO)
somewhat of an "authority" on their tactics - such that I can try to
explain why they say what they do, and even predict what they will say.

First, realize this nospam is different from the other Apple apologists.
o Most apologists actually speak what they truly internally believe

But nospam is the consummate bullshitter such that even he doesn't believe
a single word of what he says.

We can tell that by the way he often cleverly twists what he says, which is
quite different from what the rest of the apologists do - as nospam is able
to twist the slight differences in facts that indicate he actually has an
adult grasp of the facts the other apologists don't have.

The best way to characterize nospam is to imagine that he's an Apple
defense lawyer answering questions posed by Congress to explain Apple's
actions.

Nothing will be the truth; everything will be distorted in Apple's favor,
and, incessantly, the blame will _always_ be placed on everyone except
Apple for every flaw in Apple's behavior.

Just watch.
o Everything will what an Apple defense lawyer would say.

>> not that a typical non-Apple phone is any better on that front
>
> it's not. they're actually worse.

Everything nospam says is essentially what an Apple defense lawyer would
say, particularly in terms of blaming everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws.

o Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple
for Apple's poor design choices?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Iee15bZl49I/i8xeBobOAAAJ>

While we can be balanced in saying that Apple is no better than anyone else
in terms of recycling, the point isn't the recycling, for me ... the point
is that Apple _claims_ to be better (when they're clearly not).

It's the same with almost everything Apple (e.g., privacy).
o Apple _claims_ they are better; but they're all essentially the same.

*What I deplore is the sheer fantastic hypocrisy in all Apple's claims*.
o e.g., how is it better for the environment that Apple clearly forces
something like ten million premature battery replacements every year?
--
Apple Marketing claims to be 'better than thou'... when they're not.

[Arlen Holder]

Regarding...

o All new iPhones might be forced to have a removable battery (Android too)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4Ja4FP5eL5s/odJEWVmEBQAJ>

On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 07:42:55 -0500, Wolffan wrote:

>> Actual data and info from the company trumps "personal experience¡.
>
> false.

Hi Wolffan,

Only adults will comprehend this post which describes Wolffan's mindset.
o None of these Apple apologist appear to own adult cognitive skills.

Wolffan first flatly denies that Santa Claus is a fabrication of marketing,
and then, to prove his outright denial, Wolffan points out that his
experience is that nicely wrapped presents were left under the tree on
Christmas Eve every year in his childhood days.

*Who else put them there but the highly marketed Santa Claus!*

Just like flatearthers, to apologists like Wolffan, that's all the "proof"
he needs to form his extremely strongly held belief that the loud Apple
marketing is actually true!

Woo hoo!
o *Santa Claus exists!*

Wolffan makes this proclamation purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence.
o Just like every child on earth does!

Neither Wolffan, Alan Baker, or these children own adult cognitive skills.

Their strongly held belief system in what amounts to a highly marketing
mere _illusion_ of functionality is bad enough (which all apologists
exhibit), but the apologists such as Wolffan and Alan Baker go even
further.

Given nobody can disprove that the presents were there every Christmas Eve
in their anecdotal experience, Wolffan then claims that I didn't disprove
that Santa Claus exists!

Wolffan makes this bold (idiotic) claim simply because the proof, to him,
is that the fact that presents showed up on Christmas Eve is proof (to him)
that Santa Claus exists.

Since I don't even try to disprove that presents showed up (I'm sure they
did), on Christmas Eve, to Wolffan, that's proof that Santa Claus exists.

Woo hoo!
o *This is proof that Santa exists!*

Wolffan (and Alan Baker) just reveled in the fact that they think that
since I didn't prove the presents showed up (I'm sure they did), then I
didn't disprove that Santa Claus exists.

Hence, to apologists, this, in and of itself, is proof Santa Claus exists!
--
Apologists are not like normal people; their brain is stuck in 5th grade.