Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
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?
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen Holder
Dec 8, 2019, 1:01:32 AM12/8/19
to
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.
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
Dec 9, 2019, 2:45:52 PM12/9/19
to
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 06:01:31 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> 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?
Hi Alan Baker,
> 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?
I appreciate you proved my point apologists are not like normal people.
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
Dec 11, 2019, 5:14:09 AM12/11/19
to
Yet again, we have apologists like Alan Baker brazenly disputing facts in
cites, without ever READING (or comprehending) the facts they dispute!
o Updated OSes for iDevices, mac OS, Safari, etc. for 12/10/2019.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MB_0eVKBpSM>
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:48:05 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> Cite for it taking "five minutes to find".
>
> Your word is no good; only original cites and links.
Hi Alan Baker,
I appreciate that you always prove to be an Apple apologist.
o Normally I let Jolly Roger, BK, Lewis, nospam, etc., prove that.
But you'll do just fine.
The facts show...
o Either you didn't read the cited site before disputing facts, or,
o You read it, but you didn't comprehend it (which happens a lot with you)
(Pick one)
Notice you claim "my word is no good" even though I've never been
materially wrong in thousands of posts over decades on Usenet (simply
because I'm an adult who bases my belief system on facts).
Worse, notice you ask for "original cites" even though the post you are
responding to contained exactly what you are immune to, which is an
"original cite" that says exactly what I said it contained, and yet, you
claim I didn't provide.
It's shocking how consistent you apologists always prove to be.
o You're utterly _immune_ to facts; and yet, you brazenly dispute them.
--
It's amazing how consistently Apologists brazenly dispute facts without
even _reading_ the cites that contained those facts they brazenly dispute.
cites, without ever READING (or comprehending) the facts they dispute!
o Updated OSes for iDevices, mac OS, Safari, etc. for 12/10/2019.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MB_0eVKBpSM>
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:48:05 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> Cite for it taking "five minutes to find".
>
> Your word is no good; only original cites and links.
Hi Alan Baker,
I appreciate that you always prove to be an Apple apologist.
o Normally I let Jolly Roger, BK, Lewis, nospam, etc., prove that.
But you'll do just fine.
The facts show...
o Either you didn't read the cited site before disputing facts, or,
o You read it, but you didn't comprehend it (which happens a lot with you)
(Pick one)
Notice you claim "my word is no good" even though I've never been
materially wrong in thousands of posts over decades on Usenet (simply
because I'm an adult who bases my belief system on facts).
Worse, notice you ask for "original cites" even though the post you are
responding to contained exactly what you are immune to, which is an
"original cite" that says exactly what I said it contained, and yet, you
claim I didn't provide.
It's shocking how consistent you apologists always prove to be.
o You're utterly _immune_ to facts; and yet, you brazenly dispute them.
--
It's amazing how consistently Apologists brazenly dispute facts without
even _reading_ the cites that contained those facts they brazenly dispute.
Alan Baker
Dec 11, 2019, 12:43:32 PM12/11/19
to
On 2019-12-11 2:14 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Yet again, we have apologists like Alan Baker brazenly disputing facts in
> cites, without ever READING (or comprehending) the facts they dispute!
> o Updated OSes for iDevices, mac OS, Safari, etc. for 12/10/2019.
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MB_0eVKBpSM>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:48:05 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > Cite for it taking "five minutes to find".
> >
> > Your word is no good; only original cites and links.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I appreciate that you always prove to be an Apple apologist.
> o Normally I let Jolly Roger, BK, Lewis, nospam, etc., prove that.
>
> But you'll do just fine.
>
> The facts show...
> o Either you didn't read the cited site before disputing facts, or,
> o You read it, but you didn't comprehend it (which happens a lot with you)
> (Pick one)
I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.
> Yet again, we have apologists like Alan Baker brazenly disputing facts in
> cites, without ever READING (or comprehending) the facts they dispute!
> o Updated OSes for iDevices, mac OS, Safari, etc. for 12/10/2019.
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MB_0eVKBpSM>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:48:05 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > Cite for it taking "five minutes to find".
> >
> > Your word is no good; only original cites and links.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I appreciate that you always prove to be an Apple apologist.
> o Normally I let Jolly Roger, BK, Lewis, nospam, etc., prove that.
>
> But you'll do just fine.
>
> The facts show...
> o Either you didn't read the cited site before disputing facts, or,
> o You read it, but you didn't comprehend it (which happens a lot with you)
> (Pick one)
>
> Notice you claim "my word is no good" even though I've never been
> materially wrong in thousands of posts over decades on Usenet (simply
> because I'm an adult who bases my belief system on facts).
>
> Worse, notice you ask for "original cites" even though the post you are
> responding to contained exactly what you are immune to, which is an
> "original cite" that says exactly what I said it contained, and yet, you
> claim I didn't provide.
there that was from Apple's Privacy Policy...
...because I KNEW there wasn't any.
Arlen Holder
Dec 11, 2019, 3:33:53 PM12/11/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:43:31 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.
Hi Alan,
> I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.
I do appreciate when you post because my strategic goals are clear
o Expose all you Apple apologists for exactly what you are
Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Ammammata, Andreas Rutishauser, Barry Margolin,
Beedle, B...@Onramp.net, Chris, Davoud, dpb, Elden, Elfin/Lloyd
Parsons/Lloyd, Hawk, Hemidactylus, joe, Joerg Lorenz, Johan, John
McWilliams, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Meanie, nospam, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
Sandman, Savageduck, Snit, Tim Streater, 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┬ 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.
Alan Baker
Dec 11, 2019, 3:42:48 PM12/11/19
to
On 2019-12-11 12:33 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:43:31 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.
>
> 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
>
> Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Ammammata, Andreas Rutishauser, Barry Margolin,
> Beedle, B...@Onramp.net, Chris, Davoud, dpb, Elden, Elfin/Lloyd
> Parsons/Lloyd, Hawk, Hemidactylus, joe, Joerg Lorenz, Johan, John
> McWilliams, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Meanie, nospam, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
> Sandman, Savageduck, Snit, Tim Streater, 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
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:43:31 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I read the cite, AND comprehended what Krebs got wrong.
>
> 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
>
> Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Ammammata, Andreas Rutishauser, Barry Margolin,
> Beedle, B...@Onramp.net, Chris, Davoud, dpb, Elden, Elfin/Lloyd
> Parsons/Lloyd, Hawk, Hemidactylus, joe, Joerg Lorenz, Johan, John
> McWilliams, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Meanie, nospam, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
> Sandman, Savageduck, Snit, Tim Streater, 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).
> <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-iphone-11-pros-location-data-puzzler/>
A document which references another location to be "Apple's Privacy
Policy" cannot itself be that policy.
That is straight logic.
Sad for you that you cannot simply admit your mistake.
John
Dec 21, 2019, 8:54:48 PM12/21/19
to
comprehending a link.
B...@onramp.net
Dec 21, 2019, 9:20:44 PM12/21/19
to
and comprehends anything you can post. I've known him for twenty years
or so on another newsgroup. We've had disagreements over opinions,
but when he offers sources you can be sure he's got substantiation.
Wanna take a shot at Jolly Roger or nospam now? You'll get the same
response.
Plus you look foolish when agreeing with Arlen Holder about almost
anything.
B...@onramp.net
Dec 21, 2019, 9:29:09 PM12/21/19
to
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 20:20:42 -0600, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:54:43 -0800, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
<clip>
>On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:54:43 -0800, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Alan Baker is a very low IQ individual. Incapable of reading and
>>comprehending a link.
>
I forgot to mention that he is capable of composing a complete
>>comprehending a link.
>
sentence, unlike your attempt above.
Alan Baker
Dec 21, 2019, 9:36:55 PM12/21/19
to
John is just made because not only is he terribly, terribly dim-witted...
...he's just dull.
At least TomS rants and raves and loses his shit.
:-)
Alan Baker
Dec 21, 2019, 9:38:11 PM12/21/19
to
On 2019-12-21 6:29 p.m., B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 20:20:42 -0600, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:54:43 -0800, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <clip>
>>> Alan Baker is a very low IQ individual. Incapable of reading and
>>> comprehending a link.
>>
> I forgot to mention that he is capable of composing a complete
> sentence, unlike your attempt above.
The art of the semi-colon is dying.
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 20:20:42 -0600, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:54:43 -0800, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <clip>
>>> Alan Baker is a very low IQ individual. Incapable of reading and
>>> comprehending a link.
>>
> I forgot to mention that he is capable of composing a complete
> sentence, unlike your attempt above.
:-)
Arlone G. Trolder
Dec 22, 2019, 2:58:41 PM12/22/19
to
[snipped]
The poster "John <nos...@nospam.com>" has never been seen in this group
before now. You are replying to a drive-by troll's throwaway nym.
The festive season can be a hungry time for lonely trolls. Trolls would
be most glad for any nourishment you can provide them.
Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.
The poster "John <nos...@nospam.com>" has never been seen in this group
before now. You are replying to a drive-by troll's throwaway nym.
The festive season can be a hungry time for lonely trolls. Trolls would
be most glad for any nourishment you can provide them.
Another one feeds the troll
Another one feeds the troll
And another one bites, and another one bites
Another one feeds the troll
Hey, I'm gonna get you, too
Another one feeds the troll.
Joerg Lorenz
Dec 22, 2019, 4:56:12 PM12/22/19
to
Am 22.12.19 um 20:58 schrieb Arlone G. Trolder:
The noise was horrible when the intellectual level of this group hit the
ground at full speed.
And *braindead Trolls like you* destroy the usenet.
ground at full speed.
And *braindead Trolls like you* destroy the usenet.
*Hemidactylus*
Dec 23, 2019, 11:02:03 AM12/23/19
to
John
Dec 23, 2019, 12:08:51 PM12/23/19
to
B...@onramp.net
Dec 23, 2019, 10:19:44 PM12/23/19
to
wrong.
Arlen Holder
Jan 10, 2020, 7:33:02 PM1/10/20
to
The Apple Apologists just proved for us, how their minds work!
o They prove how their minds work when responding to facts they don't like.
Hence, I love when the Jolly Roger apologist posts, or Alan Baker, because
they prove for me, consistently so, exactly how Apologists' minds work.
Case in point, yesterday, Jolly Roger hated facts about iOS such that not
only did that apologist respond with his typical hateful vitriol, but even
more to the point, he brazenly bullshitted us about iOS functionality which
turns out to be (almost) completely imaginary.
Not only that, but the functionality that does exist (sporadically, as it
turns out), doesn't even perform the stated task!
*His own posts prove Jolly Roger _believes_ in this imaginary functionality!*
o Who on earth believes in imaginary functionality like Jolly Roger does?
Apparently it's how the brains of apologists work.
o They believe in imaginary functionality sans a single fact check!
Case in point is reproduced below:
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>
Note: Jolly Roger employs header trickery to avoid Google archival,
so when you respond to Jolly Roger, you need to quote the full text.
=============================
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:23:54 -0000 (UTC)
> 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?
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?
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.
o They prove how their minds work when responding to facts they don't like.
Hence, I love when the Jolly Roger apologist posts, or Alan Baker, because
they prove for me, consistently so, exactly how Apologists' minds work.
Case in point, yesterday, Jolly Roger hated facts about iOS such that not
only did that apologist respond with his typical hateful vitriol, but even
more to the point, he brazenly bullshitted us about iOS functionality which
turns out to be (almost) completely imaginary.
Not only that, but the functionality that does exist (sporadically, as it
turns out), doesn't even perform the stated task!
*His own posts prove Jolly Roger _believes_ in this imaginary functionality!*
o Who on earth believes in imaginary functionality like Jolly Roger does?
Apparently it's how the brains of apologists work.
o They believe in imaginary functionality sans a single fact check!
Case in point is reproduced below:
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>
Note: Jolly Roger employs header trickery to avoid Google archival,
so when you respond to Jolly Roger, you need to quote the full text.
=============================
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:23:54 -0000 (UTC)
> 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.
Alan Baker
Jan 11, 2020, 3:03:44 PM1/11/20
to
On 2020-01-10 4:33 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> The Apple Apologists just proved for us, how their minds work!
> o They prove how their minds work when responding to facts they don't like.
>
> Hence, I love when the Jolly Roger apologist posts, or Alan Baker, because
> they prove for me, consistently so, exactly how Apologists' minds work.
>
> Case in point, yesterday, Jolly Roger hated facts about iOS such that not
> only did that apologist respond with his typical hateful vitriol, but even
> more to the point, he brazenly bullshitted us about iOS functionality which
> turns out to be (almost) completely imaginary.
Sorry, Liar.
> The Apple Apologists just proved for us, how their minds work!
> o They prove how their minds work when responding to facts they don't like.
>
> Hence, I love when the Jolly Roger apologist posts, or Alan Baker, because
> they prove for me, consistently so, exactly how Apologists' minds work.
>
> Case in point, yesterday, Jolly Roger hated facts about iOS such that not
> only did that apologist respond with his typical hateful vitriol, but even
> more to the point, he brazenly bullshitted us about iOS functionality which
> turns out to be (almost) completely imaginary.
The functionality exists.
I provided a screenshot taken contemporaneously with the reply that
linked to it.
is that you're lying again...
...Liar.
гость
Jan 26, 2020, 11:55:25 AM1/26/20
to
Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
> The Apple Apologists just proved for us, how their minds work!
> o They prove how their minds work when responding to facts they don't like.
You’re here too, eh. You got a bug up your ass for Apple. What is it? Seems
> The Apple Apologists just proved for us, how their minds work!
> o They prove how their minds work when responding to facts they don't like.
like every fucking post has you and your panties in a twist.
--
Я гость в отеле
Arlen Holder
Feb 7, 2020, 5:01:56 PM2/7/20
to
Here's another case of the quintessential apologists, in this case,
Savageduck, posting a cite to "prove their point", without that apologist
even having _read_ the cite - because it did _not_ say what the apologist
claimed it said.
Either the apologists don't read their own cites, or, they don't comprehend
what the cites say; either way, it's what apologists always seem to do.
Case in point:
o DXOMark: Astronomically expensive iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera
ranks in last place of the top ten in camera quality of results
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w>
Look at this post today by Savageduck:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w/3s9qys-rAQAJ>
Here is my factual response exposing Savageduck didn't even _read_ his own
cite (or, he didn't comprehend what it actually said):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w/7Xzv3ZnNAQAJ>
Notice time and again, the apologists prove that they have exactly zero (0)
facts which back up their belief system, and, when pushed to the edge, they
brazenly produce cites which they google for on the Internet without even
_reading_ the content of those cites (or without comprehending that
content).
Apologists only have 7 responses to facts they simply don't like:
o None of which are adult.
Examples here:
Apologists don't have adult cognitive skills to separate fact from fiction.
Savageduck, posting a cite to "prove their point", without that apologist
even having _read_ the cite - because it did _not_ say what the apologist
claimed it said.
Either the apologists don't read their own cites, or, they don't comprehend
what the cites say; either way, it's what apologists always seem to do.
Case in point:
o DXOMark: Astronomically expensive iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera
ranks in last place of the top ten in camera quality of results
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w>
Look at this post today by Savageduck:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w/3s9qys-rAQAJ>
Here is my factual response exposing Savageduck didn't even _read_ his own
cite (or, he didn't comprehend what it actually said):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w/7Xzv3ZnNAQAJ>
Notice time and again, the apologists prove that they have exactly zero (0)
facts which back up their belief system, and, when pushed to the edge, they
brazenly produce cites which they google for on the Internet without even
_reading_ the content of those cites (or without comprehending that
content).
Apologists only have 7 responses to facts they simply don't like:
o None of which are adult.
Examples here:
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>
--
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
Apologists don't have adult cognitive skills to separate fact from fiction.
Alan Baker
Feb 7, 2020, 5:05:22 PM2/7/20
to
On 2020-02-07 2:01 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Here's another case of the quintessential apologists, in this case,
> Savageduck, posting a cite to "prove their point", without that apologist
> even having _read_ the cite - because it did _not_ say what the apologist
> claimed it said.
>
> Either the apologists don't read their own cites, or, they don't comprehend
> what the cites say; either way, it's what apologists always seem to do.
>
> Case in point:
> o DXOMark: Astronomically expensive iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera
> ranks in last place of the top ten in camera quality of results
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w>
Case in point: "last in the top ten" is a made up phrase to make
> Here's another case of the quintessential apologists, in this case,
> Savageduck, posting a cite to "prove their point", without that apologist
> even having _read_ the cite - because it did _not_ say what the apologist
> claimed it said.
>
> Either the apologists don't read their own cites, or, they don't comprehend
> what the cites say; either way, it's what apologists always seem to do.
>
> Case in point:
> o DXOMark: Astronomically expensive iPhone 11 Pro front selfie camera
> ranks in last place of the top ten in camera quality of results
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOwiN0L-i2w>
something sound bad when it is in fact very good.
How many "front selfie" cameras has DxO tested, Liar?
nospam
Feb 7, 2020, 5:37:36 PM2/7/20
to
In article <r1kmuv$jig$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
wrote:
olympic bronze medalists finished "last in the top three".
wrote:
Arlen Holder
Feb 7, 2020, 8:38:42 PM2/7/20
to
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:37:35 -0500, nospam wrote:
>> Case in point: "last in the top ten" is a made up phrase to make
>> something sound bad when it is in fact very good.
>
> olympic bronze medalists finished "last in the top three".
Hi nospam,
>> Case in point: "last in the top ten" is a made up phrase to make
>> something sound bad when it is in fact very good.
>
> olympic bronze medalists finished "last in the top three".
The point is Apple highly advertises the mere _illusion_ of functionality.
To continue your own analogy... this underscores the adult point:
o *The Olympic athlete costs hundreds of millions of dollars*
o This athlete claims hour after hour in ads how _great_ he is
o He claims day after day, incessantly, how fantastic he is
o He claims, incessantly, week after week, how wonderful he is
o *He claims month after month, incessantly, how fantastic he is*
o He claims, incessantly, year after year, how functional he is
o He claims, decade after decade, how wonderful he is in his ads
o *And he is one of the most _expensive_ athletes on this planet!*
People like you, nospam, & Alan Baker, & Savageduck _believe_ his ads!
And yet ... the absolute _best_ he can do ... after all those expensive ads
o ... *is tenth place* ...
I suggest Apple _stop_ incessantly advertising what amounts to the mere
_illusion_ of functionality; and then being in tenth place wouldn't be so
bad.
FACTS:
1. Apple incessantly advertises how great their camera QOR is
2. This iPhone is one of the most expensive phones on the planet
3. *And yet, the _best_ Apple can do ... is tenth place*!
--
Apologists actually _believe_ the imaginary functionality that Apple sells!
Alan Baker
Feb 7, 2020, 8:41:21 PM2/7/20
to
On 2020-02-07 5:38 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:37:35 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Case in point: "last in the top ten" is a made up phrase to make
>>> something sound bad when it is in fact very good.
>>
>> olympic bronze medalists finished "last in the top three".
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> The point is Apple highly advertises the mere _illusion_ of functionality.
And yet you cannot produce a quote of them doing so...
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:37:35 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Case in point: "last in the top ten" is a made up phrase to make
>>> something sound bad when it is in fact very good.
>>
>> olympic bronze medalists finished "last in the top three".
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> The point is Apple highly advertises the mere _illusion_ of functionality.
Arlen Holder
Feb 7, 2020, 11:10:21 PM2/7/20
to
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:41:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> And yet you cannot produce a quote of them doing so...
Given the iPhone 11 Pro camera comparatively sucks at low light...
> And yet you cannot produce a quote of them doing so...
<https://www.apple.com/iphone-11-pro/>
*This lovely Apple ad copy below is nothing but expensive MARKETING*
*bullshit...*
<https://i.postimg.cc/50rH5HwF/nightmode.jpg>
"The power behind beautiful night shots.
Getting great shots in low light is one of photography’s perpetual
challenges. The shutter needs to stay open longer, which can lead to blur.
Then there’s the tricky task of keeping detail in the shadows without
overexposing lighter areas. And making sure colors stay natural-looking.
With iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro, a new Wide camera sensor works with
intelligent software and A13 Bionic to *let you do what was never possible*
on iPhone: *get beautiful, detailed images in drastically lower light*.
Night mode comes on automatically when needed — say, in a candlelit
restaurant. When you tap the shutter, the camera takes multiple images
while optical image stabilization steadies the lens.
Then the camera software goes to work. It aligns images to correct for
movement. It discards the sections with too much blur and fuses sharper
ones. It adjusts contrast so everything stays in balance. It fine-tunes
colors so they look natural. Then it intelligently de-noises and enhances
details to produce the final image.
*It all adds up to night shots that stand apart* — with more detail, less
noise, and an authentic sense of time and place."
*All this lovely Apple ad copy above is nothing but expensive MARKETING*
*bullshit...*
Alan Baker
Feb 8, 2020, 8:51:14 PM2/8/20
to
On 2020-02-07 8:10 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:41:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And yet you cannot produce a quote of them doing so...
>
> Given the iPhone 11 Pro camera comparatively sucks at low light...
> <https://www.apple.com/iphone-11-pro/>
>
> *This lovely Apple ad copy below is nothing but expensive MARKETING*
> *bullshit...*
> <https://i.postimg.cc/50rH5HwF/nightmode.jpg>
>
> "The power behind beautiful night shots.
> Getting great shots in low light is one of photography¡¦s perpetual
> challenges. The shutter needs to stay open longer, which can lead to blur.
> Then there¡¦s the tricky task of keeping detail in the shadows without
> overexposing lighter areas. And making sure colors stay natural-looking.
>
> With iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro, a new Wide camera sensor works with
> intelligent software and A13 Bionic to *let you do what was never possible*
> on iPhone: *get beautiful, detailed images in drastically lower light*.
>
> Night mode comes on automatically when needed ¡X say, in a candlelit
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:41:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And yet you cannot produce a quote of them doing so...
>
> Given the iPhone 11 Pro camera comparatively sucks at low light...
> <https://www.apple.com/iphone-11-pro/>
>
> *This lovely Apple ad copy below is nothing but expensive MARKETING*
> *bullshit...*
> <https://i.postimg.cc/50rH5HwF/nightmode.jpg>
>
> "The power behind beautiful night shots.
> Getting great shots in low light is one of photography¡¦s perpetual
> challenges. The shutter needs to stay open longer, which can lead to blur.
> Then there¡¦s the tricky task of keeping detail in the shadows without
> overexposing lighter areas. And making sure colors stay natural-looking.
>
> With iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro, a new Wide camera sensor works with
> intelligent software and A13 Bionic to *let you do what was never possible*
> on iPhone: *get beautiful, detailed images in drastically lower light*.
>
> restaurant. When you tap the shutter, the camera takes multiple images
> while optical image stabilization steadies the lens.
>
> Then the camera software goes to work. It aligns images to correct for
> movement. It discards the sections with too much blur and fuses sharper
> ones. It adjusts contrast so everything stays in balance. It fine-tunes
> colors so they look natural. Then it intelligently de-noises and enhances
> details to produce the final image.
>
> *It all adds up to night shots that stand apart* ¡X with more detail, less
> while optical image stabilization steadies the lens.
>
> Then the camera software goes to work. It aligns images to correct for
> movement. It discards the sections with too much blur and fuses sharper
> ones. It adjusts contrast so everything stays in balance. It fine-tunes
> colors so they look natural. Then it intelligently de-noises and enhances
> details to produce the final image.
>
> noise, and an authentic sense of time and place."
>
> *All this lovely Apple ad copy above is nothing but expensive MARKETING*
> *bullshit...*
>
And yet you provide no rebuttal on any point...
>
> *All this lovely Apple ad copy above is nothing but expensive MARKETING*
> *bullshit...*
>
Arlen Holder
Feb 10, 2020, 3:16:39 AM2/10/20
to
UPDATE:
Below is a temporal proof of the statement below:
o Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
of facts they don't like, are "Liars".
As a matter of habit, I do not respond to "Liar" posts, but I find it
interesting how trivially easy it is to prove how incessantly commonly
apologists can't even _read_ the cites provided before they brazenly
claim...
o ... all facts apologists don't like are "lies", and,
o ... all bearers of facts apologists don't like are "Liars".
This example happened recently (I just read it moments ago):
FACT:
1. This Macrumors quote was pasted _verbatim_ (with the cite provided!):
"the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of 25MEuros
*in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*"
In this recent post:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/8xaL39VmAgAJ>
2. The apologists (in this case, Alan Baker) brazenly denied that quote was
published by Macrumors in this followup post to that quote:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/5xrab795AgAJ>
The facts prove Alan Baker wrote (verbatim):
"That's why you add the words 'in the context', *Liar*."
A. Either the apologist didn't comprehend the cite (but how could he?)
B. Or the apologists didn't even _read_ the cite before calling it a lie!
ANALYSIS:
A. If the apologist actually _read_ the cite before brazenly claiming I
"added the words", then the apologist did not _comprehend_ what he read
(because the words are factually there, whether the apologists likes that
fact or not, they're still there in this article which was cited:
o Apple Fined 25 Million Euros in France for Slowing Down Older iPhones
With iOS Update
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-25m-euros-france-slowing-down-iphones/>
B. If the apologists didn't even bother to _read_ the cite before brazenly
claiming the words weren't there, then the apologist did what is described
here:
o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
ASSESSMENT:
It's either A, or B, but either way, the apologists yet again easily prove
to brazenly claim that facts are "lies" and bearers of facts are "Liars".
More to come...I'm sure, since this is what makes apologists apologists.
--
See also:
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/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>
Below is a temporal proof of the statement below:
o Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
of facts they don't like, are "Liars".
As a matter of habit, I do not respond to "Liar" posts, but I find it
interesting how trivially easy it is to prove how incessantly commonly
apologists can't even _read_ the cites provided before they brazenly
claim...
o ... all facts apologists don't like are "lies", and,
o ... all bearers of facts apologists don't like are "Liars".
This example happened recently (I just read it moments ago):
FACT:
1. This Macrumors quote was pasted _verbatim_ (with the cite provided!):
"the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of 25MEuros
*in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*"
In this recent post:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/8xaL39VmAgAJ>
2. The apologists (in this case, Alan Baker) brazenly denied that quote was
published by Macrumors in this followup post to that quote:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/5xrab795AgAJ>
The facts prove Alan Baker wrote (verbatim):
"That's why you add the words 'in the context', *Liar*."
A. Either the apologist didn't comprehend the cite (but how could he?)
B. Or the apologists didn't even _read_ the cite before calling it a lie!
ANALYSIS:
A. If the apologist actually _read_ the cite before brazenly claiming I
"added the words", then the apologist did not _comprehend_ what he read
(because the words are factually there, whether the apologists likes that
fact or not, they're still there in this article which was cited:
o Apple Fined 25 Million Euros in France for Slowing Down Older iPhones
With iOS Update
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-25m-euros-france-slowing-down-iphones/>
B. If the apologists didn't even bother to _read_ the cite before brazenly
claiming the words weren't there, then the apologist did what is described
here:
o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
ASSESSMENT:
It's either A, or B, but either way, the apologists yet again easily prove
to brazenly claim that facts are "lies" and bearers of facts are "Liars".
More to come...I'm sure, since this is what makes apologists apologists.
--
See also:
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/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>
Alan Baker
Feb 10, 2020, 12:22:53 PM2/10/20
to
On 2020-02-10 12:16 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> Below is a temporal proof of the statement below:
> o Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
> of facts they don't like, are "Liars".
>
> As a matter of habit, I do not respond to "Liar" posts, but I find it
> interesting how trivially easy it is to prove how incessantly commonly
> apologists can't even _read_ the cites provided before they brazenly
> claim...
> o ... all facts apologists don't like are "lies", and,
> o ... all bearers of facts apologists don't like are "Liars".
>
> This example happened recently (I just read it moments ago):
>
> FACT:
> 1. This Macrumors quote was pasted _verbatim_ (with the cite provided!):
> "the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of 25MEuros
> *in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*"
> In this recent post:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/8xaL39VmAgAJ>
It may have been "verbatim", Liar...
> UPDATE:
>
> Below is a temporal proof of the statement below:
> o Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
> of facts they don't like, are "Liars".
>
> As a matter of habit, I do not respond to "Liar" posts, but I find it
> interesting how trivially easy it is to prove how incessantly commonly
> apologists can't even _read_ the cites provided before they brazenly
> claim...
> o ... all facts apologists don't like are "lies", and,
> o ... all bearers of facts apologists don't like are "Liars".
>
> This example happened recently (I just read it moments ago):
>
> FACT:
> 1. This Macrumors quote was pasted _verbatim_ (with the cite provided!):
> "the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of 25MEuros
> *in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*"
> In this recent post:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/8xaL39VmAgAJ>
...but it's a sentence fragment, isn't it?
And adding "in the context of" makes it mean something quite different
than that Apple actually admitted to committing a crime.
>
> 2. The apologists (in this case, Alan Baker) brazenly denied that quote was
> published by Macrumors in this followup post to that quote:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ/5xrab795AgAJ>
That's another lie added to your pile.
>
> The facts prove Alan Baker wrote (verbatim):
> "That's why you add the words 'in the context', *Liar*."
I did NOT write anything denying that Macrumors published it.
>
> A. Either the apologist didn't comprehend the cite (but how could he?)
> B. Or the apologists didn't even _read_ the cite before calling it a lie!
>
> ANALYSIS:
> A. If the apologist actually _read_ the cite before brazenly claiming I
> "added the words", then the apologist did not _comprehend_ what he read
I was using "you" in the sense of "one"
As in "that is why ONE adds the words".
> (because the words are factually there, whether the apologists likes that
> fact or not, they're still there in this article which was cited:
> o Apple Fined 25 Million Euros in France for Slowing Down Older iPhones
> With iOS Update
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-25m-euros-france-slowing-down-iphones/>
There was no trial. There was no criminal conviction.
>
> B. If the apologists didn't even bother to _read_ the cite before brazenly
> claiming the words weren't there, then the apologist did what is described
> here:
> o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
...the difference is that I understood it.
Arlen Holder
Feb 25, 2020, 8:01:50 PM2/25/20
to
UPDATE:
More inviolable facts proving Apple Apologists don't read the cites before
claiming that all facts they don't like, are "lies" by "Liars".
This... is why apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to facts!
Alan Baker, yet again, proved to be utterly _immune_ to facts this week in
this thread below, where Alan asked for and was provided tons of reliable
cites, of which he _ignored_ all of them, claiming the cites that exist, to
him, don't exist (i.e., Apple Apologists always prove to be _immune_ to
facts!):
o Independent repair shops disappointed with Apple's repair programs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qIXtCvV2Wtc>
Besides Apple Apologists incessantly crying "Liar liar pants on fire"...
*Another common trait of the Apple apologists is they can't read cites!*
o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
They ask for cites and then completely _ignore_ any cite you provide them!
o *It's why I say the Apple apologists are completely _immune_ to facts!*
*Apple apologists are always fantastically shockingly oblivious to facts.*
The _only_ thing the Apple apologists seem to be able to see clearly...
o ... are those glossy colorful Apple MARKETING JimJones' punch brochures.
For example, in this very thread, you saw EXACTLY what I just said, happen!
A _classic_ sign of an Apple apologist, which Alan Baker personifies, is
that they'll ask for a cite and you give them a thread or even a handful of
threads, each of which contains anywhere from a handful to scores of
reliable references.
Every single time, the apologists like Alan Baker claim they didn't see any
cites simply because they _never_ even once in their lives have _clicked_
on the references you provided.
*It's shocking proof people that _oblivious_ to facts ... actually exist.*
o You saw it happen in this very thread so it's a proven fact they do it.
--
Apple Apologists always prove to be shockingly oblivious to facts.
More inviolable facts proving Apple Apologists don't read the cites before
claiming that all facts they don't like, are "lies" by "Liars".
This... is why apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to facts!
Alan Baker, yet again, proved to be utterly _immune_ to facts this week in
this thread below, where Alan asked for and was provided tons of reliable
cites, of which he _ignored_ all of them, claiming the cites that exist, to
him, don't exist (i.e., Apple Apologists always prove to be _immune_ to
facts!):
o Independent repair shops disappointed with Apple's repair programs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qIXtCvV2Wtc>
Besides Apple Apologists incessantly crying "Liar liar pants on fire"...
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>
they don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
*Another common trait of the Apple apologists is they can't read cites!*
o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
They ask for cites and then completely _ignore_ any cite you provide them!
o *It's why I say the Apple apologists are completely _immune_ to facts!*
*Apple apologists are always fantastically shockingly oblivious to facts.*
The _only_ thing the Apple apologists seem to be able to see clearly...
o ... are those glossy colorful Apple MARKETING JimJones' punch brochures.
For example, in this very thread, you saw EXACTLY what I just said, happen!
A _classic_ sign of an Apple apologist, which Alan Baker personifies, is
that they'll ask for a cite and you give them a thread or even a handful of
threads, each of which contains anywhere from a handful to scores of
reliable references.
Every single time, the apologists like Alan Baker claim they didn't see any
cites simply because they _never_ even once in their lives have _clicked_
on the references you provided.
*It's shocking proof people that _oblivious_ to facts ... actually exist.*
o You saw it happen in this very thread so it's a proven fact they do it.
--
Apple Apologists always prove to be shockingly oblivious to facts.
Alan Baker
Feb 25, 2020, 8:42:24 PM2/25/20
to
On 2020-02-25 5:01 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> More inviolable facts proving Apple Apologists don't read the cites before
> claiming that all facts they don't like, are "lies" by "Liars".
>
> This... is why apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to facts!
>
> Alan Baker, yet again, proved to be utterly _immune_ to facts this week in
> this thread below, where Alan asked for and was provided tons of reliable
> cites, of which he _ignored_ all of them, claiming the cites that exist, to
> him, don't exist (i.e., Apple Apologists always prove to be _immune_ to
> facts!):
> o Independent repair shops disappointed with Apple's repair programs
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qIXtCvV2Wtc>
That's not a cite, Liar.
> UPDATE:
>
> More inviolable facts proving Apple Apologists don't read the cites before
> claiming that all facts they don't like, are "lies" by "Liars".
>
> This... is why apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to facts!
>
> Alan Baker, yet again, proved to be utterly _immune_ to facts this week in
> this thread below, where Alan asked for and was provided tons of reliable
> cites, of which he _ignored_ all of them, claiming the cites that exist, to
> him, don't exist (i.e., Apple Apologists always prove to be _immune_ to
> facts!):
> o Independent repair shops disappointed with Apple's repair programs
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qIXtCvV2Wtc>
>
> Besides Apple Apologists incessantly crying "Liar liar pants on fire"...
> 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>
>
> *Another common trait of the Apple apologists is they can't read cites!*
> o Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE/EnaupGnQAgAJ>
0 new messages