info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
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"?
88 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen Holder
Feb 9, 2020, 5:56:01 AM2/9/20
to
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"?
don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
Alan Baker
Feb 9, 2020, 11:37:48 AM2/9/20
to
On 2020-02-09 2:56 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> 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"?
>
You're not a bearer of facts, Liar.
> 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"?
>
Arlen Holder
Feb 10, 2020, 3:14:18 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.
--
Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
of facts they don't like, are "Liars".
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.
--
Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
of facts they don't like, are "Liars".
Arlen Holder
Feb 10, 2020, 4:15:22 AM2/10/20
to
UPDATE #2 SCREENSHOT: <https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jp>
Below is a another clear proof of the statement below:
o ... all facts apologists simply don't like are "lies", and,
that whenever the apologists claim that facts are "Lies", then adults
realize that it's their _only_ possible response to facts they don't like.
This example #2 happened recently:
FACT:
1. This BBC quote was pasted _verbatim_ (with the cite provided!):
"...Apple must display a notice on its French-language website
for a month. It says Apple "committed the *_crime_* of deceptive
commercial practice..."
<https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jp>
In this recent thread opening post:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>
2. The apologist (in this case, Alan Baker) brazenly denied the fact that
the BBC quote reported that a crime was admitted by Apple, in this post:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Mzh1IvniDr8/O1Svi4VKAgAJ>
The facts prove Alan Baker wrote (verbatim):
"Apple didn't admit to a crime, *Liar*."
A. Either the apologist didn't comprehend the cite (but how could he not?)
(in which case the apologists should have provided supporting facts).
ANALYSIS:
Lord knows, the BBC may have mis-translated the French language Apple web
site for all we know, but the apologists didn't claim that; the apologists
simply brazenly deny all facts they don't like without _any_ supporting
evidence whatsoever.
The apologists simply brazenly deny what is a reported fact simply because
they don't _like_ the reported fact, and they call all bearers of reported
fact they don't like to be "Liars".
NOTE: If it's mis-translated, we already showed the BBC wouldn't be the
only one given that this Macrumors reference says in the context of a
"criminal" transaction (as described in an earlier post of this thread):
o <https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
The adult point here isn't that it "could" be mis-translated, but that
apologists incessantly deny all facts they simply don't like, sans any
supporting evidence at all.
In essence, whenever you hear the apologists loudly proclaiming a fact is a
lie, then you can rest assured that what they claim is a lie ... is a fact.
Apologists have 7 possible responses, none of which are adult.
ASSESSMENT:
The apologists yet again easily prove to brazenly claim that facts are
"lies" and bearers of facts are "Liars", without supplying _any_ supporting
evident facts.
response to facts, which is an indication, by apologists, that what they
call "lies" are, indeed, simply facts they don't like.
Below is a another clear proof of the statement below:
o ... all facts apologists simply don't like are "lies", and,
o ... all bearers of facts apologists don't like are "Liars".
The bad news is that apologists are like children; but the good news is
that whenever the apologists claim that facts are "Lies", then adults
realize that it's their _only_ possible response to facts they don't like.
This example #2 happened recently:
FACT:
1. This BBC quote was pasted _verbatim_ (with the cite provided!):
"...Apple must display a notice on its French-language website
for a month. It says Apple "committed the *_crime_* of deceptive
commercial practice..."
<https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jp>
In this recent thread opening post:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>
2. The apologist (in this case, Alan Baker) brazenly denied the fact that
the BBC quote reported that a crime was admitted by Apple, in this post:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Mzh1IvniDr8/O1Svi4VKAgAJ>
The facts prove Alan Baker wrote (verbatim):
A. Either the apologist didn't comprehend the cite (but how could he not?)
B. Or the apologists didn't even _read_ the cite before calling it a lie!
C. Or the apologists just doesn't like the BBC translation
(in which case the apologists should have provided supporting facts).
ANALYSIS:
Lord knows, the BBC may have mis-translated the French language Apple web
site for all we know, but the apologists didn't claim that; the apologists
simply brazenly deny all facts they don't like without _any_ supporting
evidence whatsoever.
The apologists simply brazenly deny what is a reported fact simply because
they don't _like_ the reported fact, and they call all bearers of reported
fact they don't like to be "Liars".
NOTE: If it's mis-translated, we already showed the BBC wouldn't be the
only one given that this Macrumors reference says in the context of a
"criminal" transaction (as described in an earlier post of this thread):
o <https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
The adult point here isn't that it "could" be mis-translated, but that
apologists incessantly deny all facts they simply don't like, sans any
supporting evidence at all.
In essence, whenever you hear the apologists loudly proclaiming a fact is a
lie, then you can rest assured that what they claim is a lie ... is a fact.
Apologists have 7 possible responses, none of which are adult.
ASSESSMENT:
The apologists yet again easily prove to brazenly claim that facts are
"lies" and bearers of facts are "Liars", without supplying _any_ supporting
evident facts.
--
Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
of facts they don't like, are "Liars", simply because they have no adult
Apologists incessantly claim facts they don't like are "lies" and bearers
response to facts, which is an indication, by apologists, that what they
call "lies" are, indeed, simply facts they don't like.
Arlen Holder
Feb 10, 2020, 4:26:58 AM2/10/20
to
Correction...
UPDATE #1 SCREENSHOT: <https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
UPDATE #2 SCREENSHOT: <https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jpg>
--
What apologists call lies are simply facts they have no adult response to.
Arlen Holder
Feb 11, 2020, 1:11:51 PM2/11/20
to
UPDATE #3: <https://i.postimg.cc/bvkPYvzj/liar03.jpg>
Adults will note that the apologist Alan Baker don't even _read_ the cite
brazenly denying facts that don't fit into their imaginary belief systems.
<https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
Alan can childishly deny that the cite above says "in the context of"
o But the facts remain whether or not apologists like those facts.
Adults will note that the apologists knee-jerk reaction is _not_ to read
any cites provided (Lord knows, Alan Baker and Lloyd Parsons and Rescuba
prove that in spaces)...
Appologists knee-jerk reaction is to act like a bullying schoolkid, saying:
o "*Liar liar pants on fire*"
when simply apprised of a fact they don't happen to like.
Worse, some of the more child-like apologists, e.g., Lewis & Jolly Roger,
turn into instant schoolyard bully hate-filled vitriol, simply for being
told a fact that instantly DESTROYED their purely imaginary belief system.
And yet, the facts remain, whether or not apologists like those facts:
<https://i.postimg.cc/bvkPYvzj/liar03.jpg>
Apparently the Public Prosecutor of Paris thinks it's a criminal act:
<https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jpg>
Apologists will continue to deny all facts they don't like, but the fact
they call all facts they don't like to be "lies", is, in essence, the proof
that their _only_ response to facts, is to deny that they exist.
*Whenever Alan claims "Lies" & "Liar", he's accepting the fact exists!*
o He's simply proving he has no other response to that fact which exists.
--
Exposing apologists for what they are by assessing their very own words.
Adults will note that the apologist Alan Baker don't even _read_ the cite
brazenly denying facts that don't fit into their imaginary belief systems.
<https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
Alan can childishly deny that the cite above says "in the context of"
o But the facts remain whether or not apologists like those facts.
Adults will note that the apologists knee-jerk reaction is _not_ to read
any cites provided (Lord knows, Alan Baker and Lloyd Parsons and Rescuba
prove that in spaces)...
Appologists knee-jerk reaction is to act like a bullying schoolkid, saying:
o "*Liar liar pants on fire*"
when simply apprised of a fact they don't happen to like.
Worse, some of the more child-like apologists, e.g., Lewis & Jolly Roger,
turn into instant schoolyard bully hate-filled vitriol, simply for being
told a fact that instantly DESTROYED their purely imaginary belief system.
And yet, the facts remain, whether or not apologists like those facts:
<https://i.postimg.cc/bvkPYvzj/liar03.jpg>
Apparently the Public Prosecutor of Paris thinks it's a criminal act:
<https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jpg>
Apologists will continue to deny all facts they don't like, but the fact
they call all facts they don't like to be "lies", is, in essence, the proof
that their _only_ response to facts, is to deny that they exist.
*Whenever Alan claims "Lies" & "Liar", he's accepting the fact exists!*
o He's simply proving he has no other response to that fact which exists.
--
Exposing apologists for what they are by assessing their very own words.
Arlen Holder
Feb 11, 2020, 9:51:46 PM2/11/20
to
Here's a classic case of the apologist turning into an instant child in the
mere face of facts, where the sequence of events didn't even involve me:
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>
This timely thread containing on topic facts of an adult nature:
o *Apple delivers a new redesigned Maps for all users in the United States*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU>
Update:
Basically, apologists like Alan Baker denied all the facts in that thread.
o Even facts which are published, and well known, and undeniably so.
This is the sequence that shows apologists revert to "instant child" in the
face of facts they simply don't like...
1. This post refutes Alan Baker's denials with facts Alan Baker is immune to:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/wz8Bbq2_AwAJ>
"Why when I look at Apple's Maps Settings do I still see at the
bottom of the page: TOMTOM (copyright) OpenStreetMap
and other data providers (link)"
From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
2. Apologists call all facts "lies", & bearers of those facts a "Liarboy".
"Why does that matter to you in the least, Liarboy?"
From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
3. The adult respondent attempted to explain his factual assessment:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/ZAiD-M9ABAAJ>
"I at times use Apple's Maps (SIRI queries default to that app)
and want to know how it compares to Google's Maps. The fact
that Apple is still using the same data sources that caused
major issues in the past raises doubts about anything but
new window dressing for Apple Maps."
From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
4. Apologists' instant-child response to the adult assessment provided:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/u43myxpGBAAJ>
"*LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!*"
From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
Notice the apologists incessantly brazenly call all facts, a "lie".
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
And notice the apologists deny even what Apple admits in the Apple map app.
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>
--
Apologists prove to not own even the most basic of adult cognitive skills.
mere face of facts, where the sequence of events didn't even involve me:
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>
This timely thread containing on topic facts of an adult nature:
o *Apple delivers a new redesigned Maps for all users in the United States*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU>
Update:
Basically, apologists like Alan Baker denied all the facts in that thread.
o Even facts which are published, and well known, and undeniably so.
This is the sequence that shows apologists revert to "instant child" in the
face of facts they simply don't like...
1. This post refutes Alan Baker's denials with facts Alan Baker is immune to:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/wz8Bbq2_AwAJ>
"Why when I look at Apple's Maps Settings do I still see at the
bottom of the page: TOMTOM (copyright) OpenStreetMap
and other data providers (link)"
From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
2. Apologists call all facts "lies", & bearers of those facts a "Liarboy".
"Why does that matter to you in the least, Liarboy?"
From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
3. The adult respondent attempted to explain his factual assessment:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/ZAiD-M9ABAAJ>
"I at times use Apple's Maps (SIRI queries default to that app)
and want to know how it compares to Google's Maps. The fact
that Apple is still using the same data sources that caused
major issues in the past raises doubts about anything but
new window dressing for Apple Maps."
From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
4. Apologists' instant-child response to the adult assessment provided:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/u43myxpGBAAJ>
"*LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!*"
From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
Notice the apologists incessantly brazenly call all facts, a "lie".
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>
And notice the apologists deny even what Apple admits in the Apple map app.
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>
--
Apologists prove to not own even the most basic of adult cognitive skills.
Alan Baker
Feb 13, 2020, 12:07:07 PM2/13/20
to
On 2020-02-11 10:11 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> UPDATE #3: <https://i.postimg.cc/bvkPYvzj/liar03.jpg>
>
> Adults will note that the apologist Alan Baker don't even _read_ the cite
> brazenly denying facts that don't fit into their imaginary belief systems.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
You should go to the actual source...
> UPDATE #3: <https://i.postimg.cc/bvkPYvzj/liar03.jpg>
>
> Adults will note that the apologist Alan Baker don't even _read_ the cite
> brazenly denying facts that don't fit into their imaginary belief systems.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/x11K1czb/liar00.jpg>
...which is linked in the actual text of the actual MacRumors article...
...which you've deliberately chosen to avoid posting.
<https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/dgccrf/presse/communique/2020/CP-Ralentissement-fonctionnement-iPhone200207.pdf>
>
> Alan can childishly deny that the cite above says "in the context of"
> o But the facts remain whether or not apologists like those facts.
>
> Adults will note that the apologists knee-jerk reaction is _not_ to read
> any cites provided (Lord knows, Alan Baker and Lloyd Parsons and Rescuba
> prove that in spaces)...
>
> Appologists knee-jerk reaction is to act like a bullying schoolkid, saying:
> o "*Liar liar pants on fire*"
> when simply apprised of a fact they don't happen to like.
>
> Worse, some of the more child-like apologists, e.g., Lewis & Jolly Roger,
> turn into instant schoolyard bully hate-filled vitriol, simply for being
> told a fact that instantly DESTROYED their purely imaginary belief system.
>
> And yet, the facts remain, whether or not apologists like those facts:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/bvkPYvzj/liar03.jpg>
>
> Apparently the Public Prosecutor of Paris thinks it's a criminal act:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/B6gyHjmf/liar01.jpg>
is from Apple's website:
Here's the text [annotated]:
'As part of the agreement, Apple must display a notice on its
French-language website for a month.
It [the notice on Apple's website] says Apple "committed the crime of
deceptive commercial practice by omission" and had agreed to pay the fine.'
Except Apple's website includes text your source omits:
'At the end of its investigation, the National Service of Investigations
of the DGCCRF ESTIMATES that the Apple group committed the crime'
<https://www.apple.com/fr/iphone/>
Alan Baker
Feb 13, 2020, 7:13:02 PM2/13/20
to
On 2020-02-11 6:51 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Here's a classic case of the apologist turning into an instant child in the
> mere face of facts, where the sequence of events didn't even involve me:
> 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>
>
> This timely thread containing on topic facts of an adult nature:
> o *Apple delivers a new redesigned Maps for all users in the United States*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU>
>
> Update:
>
> Basically, apologists like Alan Baker denied all the facts in that thread.
> o Even facts which are published, and well known, and undeniably so.
>
> This is the sequence that shows apologists revert to "instant child" in the
> face of facts they simply don't like...
>
> 1. This post refutes Alan Baker's denials with facts Alan Baker is immune to:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/wz8Bbq2_AwAJ>
> "Why when I look at Apple's Maps Settings do I still see at the
> bottom of the page: TOMTOM (copyright) OpenStreetMap
> and other data providers (link)"
> From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
>
> 2. Apologists call all facts "lies", & bearers of those facts a "Liarboy".
> "Why does that matter to you in the least, Liarboy?"
> From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
In what way did I call a fact a lie in that exchange, Liar?
> Here's a classic case of the apologist turning into an instant child in the
> mere face of facts, where the sequence of events didn't even involve me:
> 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>
>
> This timely thread containing on topic facts of an adult nature:
> o *Apple delivers a new redesigned Maps for all users in the United States*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU>
>
> Update:
>
> Basically, apologists like Alan Baker denied all the facts in that thread.
> o Even facts which are published, and well known, and undeniably so.
>
> This is the sequence that shows apologists revert to "instant child" in the
> face of facts they simply don't like...
>
> 1. This post refutes Alan Baker's denials with facts Alan Baker is immune to:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/wz8Bbq2_AwAJ>
> "Why when I look at Apple's Maps Settings do I still see at the
> bottom of the page: TOMTOM (copyright) OpenStreetMap
> and other data providers (link)"
> From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
>
> 2. Apologists call all facts "lies", & bearers of those facts a "Liarboy".
> "Why does that matter to you in the least, Liarboy?"
> From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
>
> 3. The adult respondent attempted to explain his factual assessment:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/ZAiD-M9ABAAJ>
> "I at times use Apple's Maps (SIRI queries default to that app)
> and want to know how it compares to Google's Maps. The fact
> that Apple is still using the same data sources that caused
> major issues in the past raises doubts about anything but
> new window dressing for Apple Maps."
> From: "Thomas E." <thomas...@gmail.com>
...doesn't mean that the data itself is the same.
That's basic logic that any adult understands.
>
> 4. Apologists' instant-child response to the adult assessment provided:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/Aj2rNcshnPU/u43myxpGBAAJ>
> "*LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!*"
> From: Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
>
> Notice the apologists incessantly brazenly call all facts, a "lie".
> 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>
references to individual posts.
But what that thread shows, is that YOU are the liar...
...because I pointed out that it had only ever been "estimated" that
Apple committed a crime.
>
> And notice the apologists deny even what Apple admits in the Apple map app.
> 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>
>
trolls who cannot post under their own names.
Arlen Holder
Feb 13, 2020, 10:09:21 PM2/13/20
to
FACTUAL UPDATE: (intended for adults only)
o <https://i.postimg.cc/QxvDFP51/liar05.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/FRvMQsrD/liar06.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/prX3pGnj/liar07.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/QC4w5Qpy/liar08.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/m2nKgSZc/liar09.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/qRp55bwF/liar10.jpg>
Under French law, it is a crime to intentionally shorten the life of a
product with the aim of making customers replace it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QxvDFP51/liar05.jpg>
The law carries a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to five
percent of a company's annual turnover.
<https://i.postimg.cc/FRvMQsrD/liar06.jpg>
*Here is a screenshot of the Apple French language web site today*:
<https://i.postimg.cc/QC4w5Qpy/liar08.jpg>
While you can rest assured Apple's lawyers ensured the absolute _best_
google translation they could possibly engineer in their agreements, it's
still worth posting what a robotic translation says, since I don't speak
the nuances of the French language so I rely on the published news reports'
characterization.
*And here is a verbatim google translation of today's Apple web site*:
<https://i.postimg.cc/m2nKgSZc/liar09.jpg>
During the month of December 2017, the public prosecutor of the Paris
tribunal de grande instance received a complaint from a consumer
association.
This complaint relates to the Apple group, for facts which would have
consisted in particular in the diffusion of updates of the operating system
iOS causing a slowing down of certain iPhones, without having previously
informed the customers and users.
At the end of its investigation, the National Service of Investigations of
the DGCCRF estimates that the Apple group committed the offense of
deceptive commercial practice by omission (article L. 121-3 of the code of
consumption) by not revealing to consumers and users , the presence of a
dynamic power management system included in the iOS updates from version
10.2.1 and which, under certain conditions, can slow the operation of
iPhones of categories 6, 7 and SE , especially those with old batteries.
*A _crime_ report was sent to the public prosecutor*.
With the agreement of the public prosecutor, a significant transactional
fine was proposed to Apple Inc., which accepted it.
*Here is the French language DGCCRF PDF & a verbatim google translation*:
o PDF <https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/dgccrf/presse/communique/2020/CP-Ralentissement-fonctionnement-iPhone200207.pdf>
<https://i.postimg.cc/prX3pGnj/liar07.jpg>
o And here is the verbatim Google translation of that DGCCRF PDF
<https://i.postimg.cc/qRp55bwF/liar10.jpg>
Paris, February 07, 2020, Slowdown in the functioning of some iPhones:
A DGCCRF investigation leads to the payment of a fine 25 M [Euro]
transactional transaction by the Apple group following an investigation
by the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumption and Law Enforcement
frauds (DGCCRF) and after agreement of the Public Prosecutor of Paris,
the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of [Euro] 25 million
*in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*.
Seized on January 5, 2018 by the Paris Prosecutor's Office to investigate
the complaint of an association against Apple, the DGCCRF has indeed shown
that iPhone owners were not informed that the updates of the iOS operating
system (10.2.1 and 11.2) that they installed were likely to lead to a
slower operation of their device.
These updates, released during the year 2017, included a dynamic power
management system which could, under certain conditions and especially when
the batteries were old, slow down the functioning of the iPhone 6, SE and 7
models.
Unable to revert to the previous version of the operating system, many
consumers reportedly forced to change batteries or even buy a new phone.
The National Service of Investigations of the DGCCRF therefore transmitted
to the Paris Prosecutor's Office in 2019 the conclusions of his
investigations finding that this lack of consumer information constituted a
practice misleading commercial omission.
With the consent of the public prosecutor, it was proposed to the group
Apple - which accepted it - a transaction including the payment of the sum
of 25 M [Euro] and the publication, for a month, a press release on its
website.
Press contact DGCCRF 01 44 97 23 91 - commun...@dgccrf.finances.gouv.fr
--
Apologists hate the fact that Apple admitted to committing the crime.
o <https://i.postimg.cc/QxvDFP51/liar05.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/FRvMQsrD/liar06.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/prX3pGnj/liar07.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/QC4w5Qpy/liar08.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/m2nKgSZc/liar09.jpg>
o <https://i.postimg.cc/qRp55bwF/liar10.jpg>
Under French law, it is a crime to intentionally shorten the life of a
product with the aim of making customers replace it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QxvDFP51/liar05.jpg>
The law carries a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to five
percent of a company's annual turnover.
<https://i.postimg.cc/FRvMQsrD/liar06.jpg>
*Here is a screenshot of the Apple French language web site today*:
<https://i.postimg.cc/QC4w5Qpy/liar08.jpg>
While you can rest assured Apple's lawyers ensured the absolute _best_
google translation they could possibly engineer in their agreements, it's
still worth posting what a robotic translation says, since I don't speak
the nuances of the French language so I rely on the published news reports'
characterization.
*And here is a verbatim google translation of today's Apple web site*:
<https://i.postimg.cc/m2nKgSZc/liar09.jpg>
During the month of December 2017, the public prosecutor of the Paris
tribunal de grande instance received a complaint from a consumer
association.
This complaint relates to the Apple group, for facts which would have
consisted in particular in the diffusion of updates of the operating system
iOS causing a slowing down of certain iPhones, without having previously
informed the customers and users.
At the end of its investigation, the National Service of Investigations of
deceptive commercial practice by omission (article L. 121-3 of the code of
consumption) by not revealing to consumers and users , the presence of a
dynamic power management system included in the iOS updates from version
10.2.1 and which, under certain conditions, can slow the operation of
iPhones of categories 6, 7 and SE , especially those with old batteries.
*A _crime_ report was sent to the public prosecutor*.
With the agreement of the public prosecutor, a significant transactional
fine was proposed to Apple Inc., which accepted it.
*Here is the French language DGCCRF PDF & a verbatim google translation*:
o PDF <https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/dgccrf/presse/communique/2020/CP-Ralentissement-fonctionnement-iPhone200207.pdf>
<https://i.postimg.cc/prX3pGnj/liar07.jpg>
o And here is the verbatim Google translation of that DGCCRF PDF
<https://i.postimg.cc/qRp55bwF/liar10.jpg>
Paris, February 07, 2020, Slowdown in the functioning of some iPhones:
A DGCCRF investigation leads to the payment of a fine 25 M [Euro]
transactional transaction by the Apple group following an investigation
by the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumption and Law Enforcement
frauds (DGCCRF) and after agreement of the Public Prosecutor of Paris,
the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of [Euro] 25 million
*in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*.
Seized on January 5, 2018 by the Paris Prosecutor's Office to investigate
the complaint of an association against Apple, the DGCCRF has indeed shown
that iPhone owners were not informed that the updates of the iOS operating
system (10.2.1 and 11.2) that they installed were likely to lead to a
slower operation of their device.
These updates, released during the year 2017, included a dynamic power
management system which could, under certain conditions and especially when
the batteries were old, slow down the functioning of the iPhone 6, SE and 7
models.
Unable to revert to the previous version of the operating system, many
consumers reportedly forced to change batteries or even buy a new phone.
The National Service of Investigations of the DGCCRF therefore transmitted
to the Paris Prosecutor's Office in 2019 the conclusions of his
investigations finding that this lack of consumer information constituted a
practice misleading commercial omission.
With the consent of the public prosecutor, it was proposed to the group
Apple - which accepted it - a transaction including the payment of the sum
of 25 M [Euro] and the publication, for a month, a press release on its
website.
Press contact DGCCRF 01 44 97 23 91 - commun...@dgccrf.finances.gouv.fr
--
Apologists hate the fact that Apple admitted to committing the crime.
Arlen Holder
Feb 13, 2020, 10:09:22 PM2/13/20
to
Given any lies/liar post is a tacit admission that the facts are correct...
o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
To spare the remaining adults (if any) on this newsgroup the indignity of
an adult having to respond to child-like posts with "*Liar*" & "*lies*",
and for the permanent web-searchable public Usenet record for future use:
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://comp.mobile.ipad.narkive.com>
o <http://comp.sys.mac.advocacy.narkive.com>
o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
*I will _not_ respond to _any_ post with "_Liar_" or "_lies_" in that post*
The reason is clear:
Anyone calling facts "*lies*' is proving their _only_ response to facts is
o ... To incessantly brazenly deny that facts they simply don't like exist.
Hence, anyone claiming "*Liar*" or "*lies*" to facts...
o Is actually admitting they _agree_ to those facts.
Apologists have no _adult_ response to facts they simply do not like.
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts
Given any lies/liar post is a tacit admission that the facts are correct...
o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
--
Apologists are people who have no adult response to facts they don't like.
o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
To spare the remaining adults (if any) on this newsgroup the indignity of
an adult having to respond to child-like posts with "*Liar*" & "*lies*",
and for the permanent web-searchable public Usenet record for future use:
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://comp.mobile.ipad.narkive.com>
o <http://comp.sys.mac.advocacy.narkive.com>
o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
*I will _not_ respond to _any_ post with "_Liar_" or "_lies_" in that post*
The reason is clear:
Anyone calling facts "*lies*' is proving their _only_ response to facts is
o ... To incessantly brazenly deny that facts they simply don't like exist.
Hence, anyone claiming "*Liar*" or "*lies*" to facts...
o Is actually admitting they _agree_ to those facts.
Apologists have no _adult_ response to facts they simply do not like.
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>
Given any lies/liar post is a tacit admission that the facts are correct...
o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
--
Apologists are people who have no adult response to facts they don't like.
Arlen Holder
Feb 13, 2020, 10:09:22 PM2/13/20
to
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> 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"?
> 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"?
Given any lies/liar post is a tacit admission that the facts are correct...
o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
To spare the remaining adults (if any) on this newsgroup the indignity of
an adult having to respond to child-like posts with "*Liar*" & "*lies*",
and for the permanent web-searchable public Usenet record for future use:
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://comp.mobile.ipad.narkive.com>
o <http://comp.sys.mac.advocacy.narkive.com>
o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
*I will _not_ respond to _any_ post with "_Liar_" or "_lies_" in that post*
The reason is clear:
Anyone calling facts "*lies*' is proving their _only_ response to facts is
o ... To incessantly brazenly deny that facts they simply don't like exist.
Hence, anyone claiming "*Liar*" or "*lies*" to facts...
o Is actually admitting they _agree_ to those facts.
Apologists have no _adult_ response to facts they simply do not like.
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts
o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
To spare the remaining adults (if any) on this newsgroup the indignity of
an adult having to respond to child-like posts with "*Liar*" & "*lies*",
and for the permanent web-searchable public Usenet record for future use:
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://comp.mobile.ipad.narkive.com>
o <http://comp.sys.mac.advocacy.narkive.com>
o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
*I will _not_ respond to _any_ post with "_Liar_" or "_lies_" in that post*
The reason is clear:
Anyone calling facts "*lies*' is proving their _only_ response to facts is
o ... To incessantly brazenly deny that facts they simply don't like exist.
Hence, anyone claiming "*Liar*" or "*lies*" to facts...
o Is actually admitting they _agree_ to those facts.
Apologists have no _adult_ response to facts they simply do not like.
they don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
Alan Baker
Feb 14, 2020, 12:14:05 PM2/14/20
to
On 2020-02-13 7:09 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> FACTUAL UPDATE: (intended for adults only)
Interesting that you're deliberately choosing to post these "cites" as
> FACTUAL UPDATE: (intended for adults only)
images, and you're not providing the original links, Liar.
Could that be to make it harder for people to get the full "picture"?
Not "concludes".
Not "convicts".
>
> *A _crime_ report was sent to the public prosecutor*.
>
> With the agreement of the public prosecutor, a significant transactional
> fine was proposed to Apple Inc., which accepted it.
>
> *Here is the French language DGCCRF PDF & a verbatim google translation*:
> o PDF <https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/dgccrf/presse/communique/2020/CP-Ralentissement-fonctionnement-iPhone200207.pdf>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/prX3pGnj/liar07.jpg>
>
...to lie, Liar.
> o And here is the verbatim Google translation of that DGCCRF PDF
> <https://i.postimg.cc/qRp55bwF/liar10.jpg>
> Paris, February 07, 2020, Slowdown in the functioning of some iPhones:
>
> A DGCCRF investigation leads to the payment of a fine 25 M [Euro]
> transactional transaction by the Apple group following an investigation
> by the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumption and Law Enforcement
> frauds (DGCCRF) and after agreement of the Public Prosecutor of Paris,
> the Apple group agreed to pay a fine of [Euro] 25 million
> *in the context of a _criminal_ transaction*.
>
> Seized on January 5, 2018 by the Paris Prosecutor's Office to investigate
> the complaint of an association against Apple, the DGCCRF has indeed shown
> that iPhone owners were not informed that the updates of the iOS operating
> system (10.2.1 and 11.2) that they installed were likely to lead to a
> slower operation of their device.
>
> These updates, released during the year 2017, included a dynamic power
> management system which could, under certain conditions and especially when
> the batteries were old, slow down the functioning of the iPhone 6, SE and 7
> models.
>
> Unable to revert to the previous version of the operating system, many
> consumers reportedly forced to change batteries or even buy a new phone.
>
> The National Service of Investigations of the DGCCRF therefore transmitted
> to the Paris Prosecutor's Office in 2019 the conclusions of his
> investigations finding that this lack of consumer information constituted a
> practice misleading commercial omission.
>
> With the consent of the public prosecutor, it was proposed to the group
> Apple - which accepted it - a transaction including the payment of the sum
> of 25 M [Euro] and the publication, for a month, a press release on its
> website.
>
> Press contact DGCCRF 01 44 97 23 91 - commun...@dgccrf.finances.gouv.fr
>
Alan Baker
Feb 14, 2020, 12:15:27 PM2/14/20
to
On 2020-02-13 7:09 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Given any lies/liar post is a tacit admission that the facts are correct...
> o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
>
> To spare the remaining adults (if any) on this newsgroup the indignity of
> an adult having to respond to child-like posts with "*Liar*" & "*lies*",
> and for the permanent web-searchable public Usenet record for future use:
> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
> o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
> o <http://comp.mobile.ipad.narkive.com>
> o <http://comp.sys.mac.advocacy.narkive.com>
> o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
> *I will _not_ respond to _any_ post with "_Liar_" or "_lies_" in that post*
You don't like being called, "Liar", Liar?
> o *I will _not_ respond to posts claiming all facts are "Lies" by *liars".*
>
> To spare the remaining adults (if any) on this newsgroup the indignity of
> an adult having to respond to child-like posts with "*Liar*" & "*lies*",
> and for the permanent web-searchable public Usenet record for future use:
> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
> o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
> o <http://comp.mobile.ipad.narkive.com>
> o <http://comp.sys.mac.advocacy.narkive.com>
> o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
> *I will _not_ respond to _any_ post with "_Liar_" or "_lies_" in that post*
Yet you're so very quick to call others "children"....
Arlen Holder
Feb 25, 2020, 8:01:50 PM2/25/20
to
UPDATE:
Alan Baker again incessantly claimed "Liar liar pants on fire" numerous
times in this thread this week, once again proving what Apologists are,
simply by pointing to exactly what they write in response 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.
Alan Baker again incessantly claimed "Liar liar pants on fire" numerous
times in this thread this week, once again proving what Apologists are,
simply by pointing to exactly what they write in response 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, 8:42:56 PM2/25/20
to
On 2020-02-25 5:01 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> Alan Baker again incessantly claimed "Liar liar pants on fire" numerous
> times in this thread this week, once again proving what Apologists are,
> simply by pointing to exactly what they write in response to facts.
> o Independent repair shops disappointed with Apple's repair programs
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qIXtCvV2Wtc>
Not an actual cite, Liar.
> UPDATE:
>
> Alan Baker again incessantly claimed "Liar liar pants on fire" numerous
> times in this thread this week, once again proving what Apologists are,
> simply by pointing to exactly what they write in response 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>
Arlen Holder
Mar 6, 2020, 12:28:00 PM3/6/20
to
For the permanent Usenet record, below is yet another recent thread, where
the apologists' incessant _only_ response to published well verified facts
is to simply deny all facts exist.
Just like flat earthers do...
o The apologists denied _every_ fact presented in this thread below:
o All new iPhones might be forced to have a removable battery (Android too)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/0zzVpdtAa_k/JSNZI4t-AQAJ>
Specifically, Alan Baker claimed every single published fact was a lie.
Why?
o I don't know why.
I think apologists are like those fifth grade ignorant bullies who
beligerantly scream "Liar liar pants on fire" whenever told the simple
_adult_ fact that "Santa Clause isn't real".
Just like flat earthers...
Apologists maintain their wholly imaginary belief systems...
o Simply by denying that facts outside their belief system, even exist.
--
Apologists hate what Apple is so much they incessantly deny what Apple does.
the apologists' incessant _only_ response to published well verified facts
is to simply deny all facts exist.
Just like flat earthers do...
o The apologists denied _every_ fact presented in this thread below:
o All new iPhones might be forced to have a removable battery (Android too)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/0zzVpdtAa_k/JSNZI4t-AQAJ>
Specifically, Alan Baker claimed every single published fact was a lie.
Why?
o I don't know why.
I think apologists are like those fifth grade ignorant bullies who
beligerantly scream "Liar liar pants on fire" whenever told the simple
_adult_ fact that "Santa Clause isn't real".
Just like flat earthers...
Apologists maintain their wholly imaginary belief systems...
o Simply by denying that facts outside their belief system, even exist.
--
Apologists hate what Apple is so much they incessantly deny what Apple does.
Alan Baker
Mar 7, 2020, 2:07:27 PM3/7/20
to
On 2020-03-06 9:27 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> For the permanent Usenet record, below is yet another recent thread, where
> the apologists' incessant _only_ response to published well verified facts
> is to simply deny all facts exist.
I dare you to list actual facts (not your claimed facts, but provable
> For the permanent Usenet record, below is yet another recent thread, where
> the apologists' incessant _only_ response to published well verified facts
> is to simply deny all facts exist.
facts) that I have denied, Liar.
Arlen Holder
Mar 8, 2020, 1:29:29 AM3/8/20
to
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> 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"?
More proof...
> don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
I've studied these strange apologists for years...
o *Apologists _incessantly_ and brazenly simply deny all facts, as lies*
FACT:
Alan Baker called all facts lies, yet again, in this PSA thread this week:
o Another unfixable Intel chip flaw could render Apple's FileVault useless
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/6m-LIUDIceA/bAko6y5hAAAJ>
FACT:
Apologists brazenly fabricated claims which are trivial to prove false.
o Why?
I don't know why.
They desperately cling to their wholly imaginary fabricated belief systems
o Against all adult reason, fact, and logic to the contrary.
It's one reason pologists prove to be fantastically _immune_ to facts.
--
By denying all facts as lies, apologists maintain their imaginary beliefs.
Alan Baker
Mar 8, 2020, 4:06:52 AM3/8/20
to
On 2020-03-07 10:29 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> 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"?
>
> More proof...
>
> I've studied these strange apologists for years...
> o *Apologists _incessantly_ and brazenly simply deny all facts, as lies*
>
> FACT:
> Alan Baker called all facts lies, yet again, in this PSA thread this week:
> o Another unfixable Intel chip flaw could render Apple's FileVault useless
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/6m-LIUDIceA/bAko6y5hAAAJ>
What facts did I call lies, Liar: be specific?
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> 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"?
>
> More proof...
>
> I've studied these strange apologists for years...
> o *Apologists _incessantly_ and brazenly simply deny all facts, as lies*
>
> FACT:
> Alan Baker called all facts lies, yet again, in this PSA thread this week:
> o Another unfixable Intel chip flaw could render Apple's FileVault useless
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/6m-LIUDIceA/bAko6y5hAAAJ>
Arlen Holder
May 3, 2020, 9:32:02 PM5/3/20
to
More proof, today...apologists claim all facts they don't like, are...
o lies, by Liars
Note: I think I figured out _why_ the apologists claim all facts are lies.
o But first we have to establish that this is what they incessantly do.
To that end...
1. *This thread was posted containing verbatim & important facts.*
o Pervasive Mac bug causes HEIC files imported from iOS devices
and converted to JPG to contain more than 1.5MB of empty data
appended to the end of each file
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU>
2. The apologists responded to those facts by blaming Microsoft & Google:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU/lfUa7weaBwAJ>
verbatim...
"There are far more and more serious bugs in all Windows,
Microsoft, and Android-based software and hardware."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU/5fUMbt6aBwAJ>
3. To which I replied this bug, which literally affects all iOS & Mac
devices on the planet, has absolutely _nothing_ whatsoever to do
with either Microsoft or Google.
4. The apologists responded to those facts by claiming all facts are lies:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU/1aGFIeGeBwAJ>
verbatim...
"It is not a fact that anyone blamed "everyone but Apple", Arlen.
It's a lie...
...Liar. "
--
Apologists _hate_ what Apple is, which isn't what MARKETING said it was.
Hence, they blame everyone but Apple for Apple being just like they are.
o lies, by Liars
Note: I think I figured out _why_ the apologists claim all facts are lies.
o But first we have to establish that this is what they incessantly do.
To that end...
1. *This thread was posted containing verbatim & important facts.*
o Pervasive Mac bug causes HEIC files imported from iOS devices
and converted to JPG to contain more than 1.5MB of empty data
appended to the end of each file
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU>
2. The apologists responded to those facts by blaming Microsoft & Google:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU/lfUa7weaBwAJ>
verbatim...
"There are far more and more serious bugs in all Windows,
Microsoft, and Android-based software and hardware."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU/5fUMbt6aBwAJ>
3. To which I replied this bug, which literally affects all iOS & Mac
devices on the planet, has absolutely _nothing_ whatsoever to do
with either Microsoft or Google.
4. The apologists responded to those facts by claiming all facts are lies:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/YMaoIpsrFZU/1aGFIeGeBwAJ>
verbatim...
"It is not a fact that anyone blamed "everyone but Apple", Arlen.
It's a lie...
...Liar. "
--
Apologists _hate_ what Apple is, which isn't what MARKETING said it was.
Hence, they blame everyone but Apple for Apple being just like they are.
Alan Baker
May 3, 2020, 10:17:56 PM5/3/20
to
On 2020-05-03 6:32 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> More proof, today...apologists claim all facts they don't like, are...
> o lies, by Liars
Your claim that people "blame everyone but Apple"...
> More proof, today...apologists claim all facts they don't like, are...
> o lies, by Liars
...is a lie...
...Liar.
Arlen Holder
May 8, 2020, 1:52:32 PM5/8/20
to
In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
> Liar, Liar, Liar...
>
> ...this is just sad.
>
>
> I know you're lying.
>
> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>
> You know you're lying.
For the permanent Usenet record... (see also proof in my header above)...
o And for Dunning-Kruger-like researchers studying apologists in the future
*This is a crucial thread for _understanding_ the mind of the apologist!*
o From: Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no>
o Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.system
o Subject: Re: Why must Arlen lie?
o Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 10:32:32 -0700
o Message-ID: <r9453g$vks$2...@dont-email.me>
etc.
What's amazingly revealing is how _desperate_ apologists are to cling to
what is trivially easily shown to be purely imaginary belief systems.
1. Alan apparently took umbrage that I mentioned a custom newsreader setup
2. Alan apparently & shockingly actually _believed_ the randomized headers
3. Even well _after_ we provided facts proving they're easily randomized
In order to maintain, for himself, his completely imaginary belief system:
4. Now Alan is simply incessantly claiming all the facts are lies by liars!
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
Simply because _he_ was and still is, unable to process basic facts.
o Such as the fact that the headers can be and are easily randomized.
Yet, just as a certain kind of child, when told Santa Claus isn't real
o Incessantly screams out in a tantrum: "Liar liar pants on fire!"
Alan Baker _continues_ to claim even these, the simplest of facts that
don't fit into his purely imaginary belief system, must be lies by liars.
It's not shocking that apologists prove to lack even basic adult skills
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
What's more _revealing_ about these apologists though...
o Is how _desperately_ they _cling_ to their wholly imaginary beliefs!
Alan is desperately struggling to find a set of circumstances that _fit_
into his purely imaginary belief system (sort of how a young child still
clings to the idea of Santa Claus after first finding out the truth).
This is telling about apologists - so it's an _important_ observation.
o For if I were MARKETING, I'd be happy to provide those very circumstances
Which is exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds to apologists ...
o Every single day of their lives.
--
MARKETING is aware apologists are desperate to maintain imaginary beliefs!
> Liar, Liar, Liar...
>
> ...this is just sad.
>
>
> I know you're lying.
>
> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>
> You know you're lying.
For the permanent Usenet record... (see also proof in my header above)...
o And for Dunning-Kruger-like researchers studying apologists in the future
*This is a crucial thread for _understanding_ the mind of the apologist!*
o From: Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no>
o Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.system
o Subject: Re: Why must Arlen lie?
o Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 10:32:32 -0700
o Message-ID: <r9453g$vks$2...@dont-email.me>
etc.
What's amazingly revealing is how _desperate_ apologists are to cling to
what is trivially easily shown to be purely imaginary belief systems.
1. Alan apparently took umbrage that I mentioned a custom newsreader setup
2. Alan apparently & shockingly actually _believed_ the randomized headers
3. Even well _after_ we provided facts proving they're easily randomized
In order to maintain, for himself, his completely imaginary belief system:
4. Now Alan is simply incessantly claiming all the facts are lies by liars!
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
Simply because _he_ was and still is, unable to process basic facts.
o Such as the fact that the headers can be and are easily randomized.
Yet, just as a certain kind of child, when told Santa Claus isn't real
o Incessantly screams out in a tantrum: "Liar liar pants on fire!"
Alan Baker _continues_ to claim even these, the simplest of facts that
don't fit into his purely imaginary belief system, must be lies by liars.
It's not shocking that apologists prove to lack even basic adult skills
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
What's more _revealing_ about these apologists though...
o Is how _desperately_ they _cling_ to their wholly imaginary beliefs!
Alan is desperately struggling to find a set of circumstances that _fit_
into his purely imaginary belief system (sort of how a young child still
clings to the idea of Santa Claus after first finding out the truth).
This is telling about apologists - so it's an _important_ observation.
o For if I were MARKETING, I'd be happy to provide those very circumstances
Which is exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds to apologists ...
o Every single day of their lives.
--
MARKETING is aware apologists are desperate to maintain imaginary beliefs!
Alan Baker
May 8, 2020, 2:10:04 PM5/8/20
to
On 2020-05-08 10:52 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Liar, Liar, Liar...
>>
>> ...this is just sad.
>>
>>
>> I know you're lying.
>>
>> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>>
>> You know you're lying.
>
> For the permanent Usenet record...
...you need to learn to accept when you're caught, Liar.
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Liar, Liar, Liar...
>>
>> ...this is just sad.
>>
>>
>> I know you're lying.
>>
>> Everyone else knows you're lying.
>>
>> You know you're lying.
>
> For the permanent Usenet record...
:-)
Arlen Holder
May 8, 2020, 8:40:19 PM5/8/20
to
> ...you need to learn to accept when you're caught, Liar.
What's incredible is how _sure_ Alan Baker is of his cognitive skills!
o Apologists like Alan Baker are utterly convinced they are correct...
Even after being shown by multiple people their entire belief system
o Wasn't based on even a single fact!
In fact, their entire belief system is based on exactly _zero_ (0) facts!
o And yet, they desperately cling to their belief system
Calling every obvious fact they simply can't process, a "lie by liars".
Would someone used to dealing with small children please explain to Alan
Baker how "telnet" scripts work?
telnet nntp.aioe.org 119
telnet news.eternal-september.org 119
telnet news.albasani.net 119
etc.
For example...
$ telnet news.aioe.org 119 (wait for response)
> POST (command to post)
> From: any...@anydomain.com (1st line)
> Newsgroups: misc.test (2nd line)
> Subject: Test (3rd line)
> Message-ID: <what...@wherever.com> (4th line)
> (fifth line)
> This is a test. (sixth line)
> . (command to end post)
> GROUP misc.test (see if the article posted)
> ARTICLE 12345 (see the article you posted)
> quit (quit out of the session)
Also maybe someone can explain to him the basics of remailers too?
Subject: Anything you like
To: mail2news_nospam-y...@m2n.mixmin.net
Author-Supplied-Address: anyt...@anydomain.com
From: Your Name/Email
Newsgroups:news.software.readers,alt.comp.freeware,alt.free.newsservers
{ BODY }
.
(For example: mail2news-20200508-n...@m2n.mixmin.net)
What's amazing about the apologists Alan Baker, Lewis, Jolly Roger, BK,
Your Name, et al., is how incredibly confident they are that every fact
they can't process, must be a lie.
--
MARKETING must have a field day feeding apologists what they want to hear.
Alan Baker
May 8, 2020, 8:48:38 PM5/8/20
to
...I never said it couldn't be done, Liar.
It was never about what could or couldn't be done.
It was about the obvious fact that one WOULDN'T do it; because there are
far better tools for posting.
It was about the fact that your stated rationale to support your lie was
and still is completely bullshit.
People cannot track you by your "User agent" header...
...because you can only track people by what is unique to their posts.
You lie.
I know it.
You know it.
Everyone knows it.
Learn to deal with it.
Arlen Holder
May 8, 2020, 10:07:01 PM5/8/20
to
Alan,
I _wish_ you apologists could carry on an _adult_ conversation...
o Sort of like this one moments ago I typed off the top of my head...
Not one of you apologists is capable of even close to this level of thought
o *Life with COVID-19*, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Uwuhlfo4h04>
To wit:
In response to what s|b <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote :
> It's not going to last.
Hi S or b,
I know you from this android newsgroup where you have been shown to be
intelligent, which is vastly appreciated in this sea of the hoi polloi.
You're probably correct that human nature will return to its past, where,
I'm trying to study how this particular virus caused such a disruption to
our normal schedules (and even personal space considerations).
Personally, I feel this virus is going to be with us forever.
However, nobody can predict what will happen simply because a lot depends
on how "leaky" the quarantine is, how completely the antibody blood draw
and/or nasal swabs are, and how soon an "effective" vaccine comes out to
protect those at greatest risk, nor whether the virus, admittedly an RNA
virus (which has fewer replication checks than do DNA viruses) will mutate,
and in what direction immunologically.
I've read many predictions, where the most common seems to be a series of
decreasing amplitude 'waves' of infection over the next decade or five, or
ten, or forever, where we must remember that only a couple coronaviruses
cause from one tenth to up to about a third of all common colds today.
That's pretty damn infectious.
Contrast two coronaviruses causing at least 1/10th of all colds with the
_hundreds_ of rhino and adenoviruses out there that _also_ cause the common
cold, and that gives you a glimpse at just how infectious these zoonotic
coronaviruses have evolved to be.
What's particularly nasty about this SARS-CoV-2 bug is that furin enzyme
cleaves the glycoprotein spike such that it attaches wonderfully to our
ACE2 receptors in our ciliated lung cells allowing our phospholipid cell
membranes to fuse with that of the virus.
This essentially opens the door to the capsid which contains the curled up
RNA of the virus, which our cells replicate outside the nucleus, to form so
many new virus particles that our cells rupture, lending our own
phospholipid envelope to the virus to allow it to shed anew.
The problem is that our humoral (i.e., targeted) immune system is not
acquainted with this particular spike protein, so all we're left with is
our innate (i.e., non specific) immune system, which, unfortunately, tends
to run amok with what is known in the trade as a 'cytokine storm'.
Worse, even if we survive the 'honeycomb lung' scarring of the full-blown
Covid-19 disease, our targeted antibody titre only lasts a handful of years
(based on most, but not all scientific papers I've read to date).
What that means is that even if we come up with a way to create the
glycoprotein antigen and inject it into our bodies to make antibodies
targeted to that antigenic shape, those antibodies don't seem to last all
that long so we're gonna have to be taking the vaccine forever (if that's
the case).
The point is there is no cure other than the normal one, which is that
those who die, die, and those who live, pass their genes on to the future.
Unfortunately, most of us are octogenarians, so, we're the ones who
experience the cytokine storm that ends up, in the end, to be our doom.
--
SARS-CoV-2 spike affinity is orders of magnitude greater than SARS-CoV-1.
I _wish_ you apologists could carry on an _adult_ conversation...
o Sort of like this one moments ago I typed off the top of my head...
Not one of you apologists is capable of even close to this level of thought
o *Life with COVID-19*, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Uwuhlfo4h04>
To wit:
In response to what s|b <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote :
> It's not going to last.
Hi S or b,
I know you from this android newsgroup where you have been shown to be
intelligent, which is vastly appreciated in this sea of the hoi polloi.
You're probably correct that human nature will return to its past, where,
I'm trying to study how this particular virus caused such a disruption to
our normal schedules (and even personal space considerations).
Personally, I feel this virus is going to be with us forever.
However, nobody can predict what will happen simply because a lot depends
on how "leaky" the quarantine is, how completely the antibody blood draw
and/or nasal swabs are, and how soon an "effective" vaccine comes out to
protect those at greatest risk, nor whether the virus, admittedly an RNA
virus (which has fewer replication checks than do DNA viruses) will mutate,
and in what direction immunologically.
I've read many predictions, where the most common seems to be a series of
decreasing amplitude 'waves' of infection over the next decade or five, or
ten, or forever, where we must remember that only a couple coronaviruses
cause from one tenth to up to about a third of all common colds today.
That's pretty damn infectious.
Contrast two coronaviruses causing at least 1/10th of all colds with the
_hundreds_ of rhino and adenoviruses out there that _also_ cause the common
cold, and that gives you a glimpse at just how infectious these zoonotic
coronaviruses have evolved to be.
What's particularly nasty about this SARS-CoV-2 bug is that furin enzyme
cleaves the glycoprotein spike such that it attaches wonderfully to our
ACE2 receptors in our ciliated lung cells allowing our phospholipid cell
membranes to fuse with that of the virus.
This essentially opens the door to the capsid which contains the curled up
RNA of the virus, which our cells replicate outside the nucleus, to form so
many new virus particles that our cells rupture, lending our own
phospholipid envelope to the virus to allow it to shed anew.
The problem is that our humoral (i.e., targeted) immune system is not
acquainted with this particular spike protein, so all we're left with is
our innate (i.e., non specific) immune system, which, unfortunately, tends
to run amok with what is known in the trade as a 'cytokine storm'.
Worse, even if we survive the 'honeycomb lung' scarring of the full-blown
Covid-19 disease, our targeted antibody titre only lasts a handful of years
(based on most, but not all scientific papers I've read to date).
What that means is that even if we come up with a way to create the
glycoprotein antigen and inject it into our bodies to make antibodies
targeted to that antigenic shape, those antibodies don't seem to last all
that long so we're gonna have to be taking the vaccine forever (if that's
the case).
The point is there is no cure other than the normal one, which is that
those who die, die, and those who live, pass their genes on to the future.
Unfortunately, most of us are octogenarians, so, we're the ones who
experience the cytokine storm that ends up, in the end, to be our doom.
--
SARS-CoV-2 spike affinity is orders of magnitude greater than SARS-CoV-1.
Arlen Holder
Jun 30, 2020, 1:32:52 PM6/30/20
to
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
Regarding this post by Jolly Roger against all who speak facts:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon
with licensed ARM technology
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/xKTMWDhKztk>
What's consistent is the Type III apologists always claim all facts they
simply don't like, are "lies by liars".
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
Why do apologists claim all facts are lies?
o I don't know why.
I think, perhaps, facts are a threat to apologists like Jolly Roger...
o Just as facts are a threat to Cultists & to Flat Earthers.
Apologists have only 7 responses 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/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM%5B1-25%5D>
--
Note: Jolly Roger sets a no-archive bit, so here's his post, in full:
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple
MARKETING bullshit regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC
silicon with licensed ARM technology
> Date: 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT
> Message-ID: <hm19ru...@mid.individual.net>
>
> On 2020-06-29, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <9nsKG.76486$7vd....@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei
>><jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>>>> chip, as was the entire industry.
>>>
>>> Blindsighted is too strong a word.
>>
>> not at all. if anything, it greatly understates what happened.
>>
>>> ARM is the one who released the 64
>>> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
>>> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
>>> doing the same.
>>
>> to use everyone's favourite quote: *stop* *making* *things* *up*.
>>
>> qualcomm wasn't working on 64 bit arm processors, and when apple
>> announced the 64 bit a7, they tried to claim 61 bit wasn't needed and
>> nothing more than a gimmick because they were *completely* caught by
>> surprise.
>>
>><https://wccftech.com/qualcomm-employee-64bit-apple-a7-chip-hit-gut/>
>> "The 64-bit Apple chip hit us in the gut," says the Qualcomm
>> employee. "Not just us, but everyone, really. We were slack-jawed,
>> and stunned, and unprepared. Itąs not that big a performance
>> difference right now, since most current software wonąt benefit. But
>> in Spinal Tap terms itąs like, 32 more, and now everyone wants it."
>>
>> only *after* apple's announcement did qualcomm scramble to come up with
>> their own implementation, except that apple continued to advance and
>> widen the gap even further.
>>
>>> Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
>>> surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
>>> designers were seriosu business.
>>
>> it completely blindsided the industry. full stop.
>
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
Regarding this post by Jolly Roger against all who speak facts:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon
with licensed ARM technology
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/xKTMWDhKztk>
What's consistent is the Type III apologists always claim all facts they
simply don't like, are "lies by liars".
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>
Why do apologists claim all facts are lies?
o I don't know why.
I think, perhaps, facts are a threat to apologists like Jolly Roger...
o Just as facts are a threat to Cultists & to Flat Earthers.
Apologists have only 7 responses 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/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM%5B1-25%5D>
--
Note: Jolly Roger sets a no-archive bit, so here's his post, in full:
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple
MARKETING bullshit regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC
silicon with licensed ARM technology
> Date: 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT
> Message-ID: <hm19ru...@mid.individual.net>
>
> On 2020-06-29, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <9nsKG.76486$7vd....@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei
>><jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>>>> chip, as was the entire industry.
>>>
>>> Blindsighted is too strong a word.
>>
>> not at all. if anything, it greatly understates what happened.
>>
>>> ARM is the one who released the 64
>>> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
>>> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
>>> doing the same.
>>
>> to use everyone's favourite quote: *stop* *making* *things* *up*.
>>
>> qualcomm wasn't working on 64 bit arm processors, and when apple
>> announced the 64 bit a7, they tried to claim 61 bit wasn't needed and
>> nothing more than a gimmick because they were *completely* caught by
>> surprise.
>>
>><https://wccftech.com/qualcomm-employee-64bit-apple-a7-chip-hit-gut/>
>> "The 64-bit Apple chip hit us in the gut," says the Qualcomm
>> employee. "Not just us, but everyone, really. We were slack-jawed,
>> and stunned, and unprepared. Itąs not that big a performance
>> difference right now, since most current software wonąt benefit. But
>> in Spinal Tap terms itąs like, 32 more, and now everyone wants it."
>>
>> only *after* apple's announcement did qualcomm scramble to come up with
>> their own implementation, except that apple continued to advance and
>> widen the gap even further.
>>
>>> Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
>>> surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
>>> designers were seriosu business.
>>
>> it completely blindsided the industry. full stop.
>
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
Arlen Holder
Jun 30, 2020, 4:25:55 PM6/30/20
to
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:51:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.
Hi Wolffan,
*"kiddie-fiddler"*?
How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
o Ten?
Regarding this thread today:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>
It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?
Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
o *kiddie fiddler*
Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year
To those facts, you apologists respond....
o "*kiddie fiddler*"?
That's apologists' _best_ response to the known facts about Apple products?
*Kiddie Fiddler*
--
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts about Apple products, none adult.
> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.
Hi Wolffan,
*"kiddie-fiddler"*?
How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
o Ten?
Regarding this thread today:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>
It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?
Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
o *kiddie fiddler*
Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year
To those facts, you apologists respond....
o "*kiddie fiddler*"?
That's apologists' _best_ response to the known facts about Apple products?
*Kiddie Fiddler*
--
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts about Apple products, none adult.
Arlen Holder
Jul 13, 2020, 5:48:33 PM7/13/20
to
On 13 Jul 2020 09:12:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> Instead of reporting facts you trolls lie
Hi Sandman,
Regarding these published well-cited facts which you brazenly deny:
o Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>
You just proved you're a Type III apologist (ala, Alan Baker)
The entire post was verbatim - and - it included the cite to the original.
o I didn't add anything - I simply quoted the salient facts for you.
*How can you possibly call a verbatim post (with the cite), a "lie"?*
o No reasonable adult does what you strange apologists always do.
Since I've studied you apologists for years, I've assessed you _hate_ what
Apple is, because you own an imaginary belief system (fed to you by
MARKETING) of what you _thought_ Apple was.
And yet, every fact points to what Apple _is_ which is why you hate them.
It's like your mom is a prostitute whom you _think_ is an angel.
o So every fact about your mom, even as it's fact, you call a lie.
Like flat earthers, the _only_ way you can maintain your imaginary belief
system intact is to simply claim that all facts about Apple are lies.
Even verbatim quotes are "lies" to you apologists.
--
Apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much that all facts about Apple, to
them, must be lies since facts don't fit into what MARKETING fed them.
> Instead of reporting facts you trolls lie
Hi Sandman,
Regarding these published well-cited facts which you brazenly deny:
o Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>
You just proved you're a Type III apologist (ala, Alan Baker)
The entire post was verbatim - and - it included the cite to the original.
o I didn't add anything - I simply quoted the salient facts for you.
*How can you possibly call a verbatim post (with the cite), a "lie"?*
o No reasonable adult does what you strange apologists always do.
Since I've studied you apologists for years, I've assessed you _hate_ what
Apple is, because you own an imaginary belief system (fed to you by
MARKETING) of what you _thought_ Apple was.
And yet, every fact points to what Apple _is_ which is why you hate them.
It's like your mom is a prostitute whom you _think_ is an angel.
o So every fact about your mom, even as it's fact, you call a lie.
Like flat earthers, the _only_ way you can maintain your imaginary belief
system intact is to simply claim that all facts about Apple are lies.
Even verbatim quotes are "lies" to you apologists.
--
Apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much that all facts about Apple, to
them, must be lies since facts don't fit into what MARKETING fed them.
Arlen Holder
Jul 13, 2020, 6:20:49 PM7/13/20
to
What's consistent is how apologists brazenly deny even what Apple admitted!
o *What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>
Here's the news from today, direct from Apple (as always, verbatim so that
Apologists will simply have to brazenly deny exactly what Apple said)
o *Don't close your MacBook, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro with a cover over the camera*
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148>
Notice the apologists in this thread repeatedly brazenly denied every fact
about Apple they simply don't like! (Which is pretty much everything since
their entire belief system, being purely imaginary, is threatened by facts)
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>
That thread contained verbatim quotes from Apple, which, the apologists,
apparently hate (since they hate that facts show what Apple is), so they
repeatedly (and viciously) denied that Apple said what Apple said.
What is so very wrong with these strange apologists anyway?
o Why are they so pathetically afraid of something as simple as a fact?
I don't know why.
o However, I suspect it's pretty simple why.
Consider a child of a high-priced prostitute who dearly loves his mom.
o Of course, that child will call all facts about his mom, a "lie by liars"
What else can that child do to maintain his purely imaginary belief system?
In summary, I don't know why apologists call all facts a lie by liars...
o Even facts that clearly are facts that Apple themselves published openly.
I suspect it's as simple as apologists _hate_ what Apple is.
o Facts about Apple instantly DESTROY their imaginary belief systems.
--
Bringing truth to the Apple newsgroups, where they need it most.
o *What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>
Here's the news from today, direct from Apple (as always, verbatim so that
Apologists will simply have to brazenly deny exactly what Apple said)
o *Don't close your MacBook, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro with a cover over the camera*
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148>
Notice the apologists in this thread repeatedly brazenly denied every fact
about Apple they simply don't like! (Which is pretty much everything since
their entire belief system, being purely imaginary, is threatened by facts)
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>
That thread contained verbatim quotes from Apple, which, the apologists,
apparently hate (since they hate that facts show what Apple is), so they
repeatedly (and viciously) denied that Apple said what Apple said.
What is so very wrong with these strange apologists anyway?
o Why are they so pathetically afraid of something as simple as a fact?
I don't know why.
Consider a child of a high-priced prostitute who dearly loves his mom.
o Of course, that child will call all facts about his mom, a "lie by liars"
What else can that child do to maintain his purely imaginary belief system?
In summary, I don't know why apologists call all facts a lie by liars...
o Even facts that clearly are facts that Apple themselves published openly.
I suspect it's as simple as apologists _hate_ what Apple is.
o Facts about Apple instantly DESTROY their imaginary belief systems.
--
Bringing truth to the Apple newsgroups, where they need it most.
Arlen Holder
Jul 14, 2020, 2:12:16 PM7/14/20
to
On 14 Jul 2020 11:32:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:
> He is so afraid of this that his only course of action is to SNIP OUT his
> lies in every single post, and try to ignore them outright. Go ahead little
> liar, snip it again and run away with your tail between your legs, it is
> after all what you do best. Far be it from you to actually acknowledge the
> lie you told and admit to it. No, snip little boy, snip and run!
Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),
The problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that you apologists exist.
o This thread is PERFECT for the permanent archives - to prove that point.
A. Facts that Apple published themselves, were provided.
B. To date, 34 of 36 responses were apologists' refuting the facts
(or me explaining, patiently to those apologists, the facts)
C. And yet, *all the apologists are fantastically _immune_ to those facts*
(they literally brazenly deny Apple said what Apple clearly said!)
To wit, we come to this utter moron, of the same low IQ as Alan Baker.
o I estimate Alan Baker's IQ of around 40, maybe as high as 50 (IMHO).
Which is likely why he can't comprehend what a double quote indicates...
o Nor what the word "verbatim" even means (especially with double quotes).
Sandman _is_ most likely a sock of Alan Baker, as far as I can tell.
o As with Alan Baker, he incessantly claim all facts are "lies by liars".
Hence, to spare adults the indignity of me having to drop to his level
o This is my last post to Sandman on this topic.
For the very few actual adults on this newsgroup...
1. The topic was EXACTLY what it said (verbatim) in the Subject.
2. The description was EXACTLY as said (verbatim) in the OP.
3. Sandman (aka a sock of Alan Baker) refutes what Apple said.
If this "Sandman" isn't perchance, Alan Baker, they act the same:
a. They both call all facts "lies by liars" (even verbatim posts!)
b. They both hate when we use proper Usenet quoting netiquette
There are 36 responses by 9 authors, only one of which is from an adult:
o Ant
"Weird. No problems with old MBPs like from 2012 and 2008.
Must be the newer models."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8/mICgDVwTDQAJ>
o My adult response to Ant
"In _this_ situation, Ant, Apple says that if you use a cover,
then you can easily break the screen, as the tolerances are rather
tight (and it has happened, apparently, enough to have caused Apple
to issue the warning).
So simply consider this a PSA, so that you know how to not have
it happen."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8/DSmIvCAXDQAJ>
The rest of the responses prove why this newsgroup is what it is:
o Alan Baker, Sandman, John McWilliams, John Dee, Wolffan, Otto Pylot
While all those are Type III apologists (IQ of around 40 or 50, IMHO)...
o Our resident Type I apologist, nospam, weighted in claiming,
essentially, he's sick and tired of seeing accurate & well cited
facts about Apple products, saying (correctly so), "it never ends".
Good.
o When people are claiming the facts will never end... I'm doing my job.
While the Type III apologists claimed that Apple didn't say what Apple
clearly said (all of which was verbatim and they _still_ claimed Apple
didn't say what Apple said)...
The _best_ that Sandman (aka Alan Baker) can come up with is that in my one
reply to the one adult (Ant), I didn't bother to quote verbatim since I was
speaking with an adult, so I paraphrased what Apple said (where Ant well
knew I was doing that since ALL ADULTS would know I didn't state it was
verbatim - it was a summary to Ant, as an adult to an adult).
That one sentence, of that one-line summary, caused Sandman (aka Alan
Baker) to foment upon us a tirade of "liar liar pants on fire" posts,
all simply because Sandman (aka Alan Baker) is too stupid to understand
what Ant (and all adults) instantly knew was a paraphrase (since it had no
quotes, and it wasn't stated to be a quote, which, for God's sake, I can't
believe I have to EXPLAIN on this newsgroup).
Sandman (aka Alan Baker) is an utter moron who is so stupid he can't fathom
what the word "verbatim" means (it wasn't in that post to Ant as it wasn't
needed!) nor, what a double quote means (it wasn't in that post to Ant)...
Jesus Christ... can you believe how _loooooow_ the IQ of Sandman/Baker is?
Having worked in the Silicon Valley for decades, I have never run into
people like Sandman/Baker _that_ incredibly incomprehensibly stupid.
I can deal with nospam, since he's actually not as stupid as what he writes
shows him to be (nospam is simply a dutiful parrot of MARKETING mantra).
But I just can't stoop down to the low-IQ level of Sandman/Baker.
o I just can't.
*Clearly, these apologists are what has ruined this newsgroup, for years.*
See also:
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/7IqoAq8fURo>
And...
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/_50ZqBhcbYs>
And, in relation to apologists claiming all facts are lies by liars:
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>
And, in relation to apologists brazenly denying even what Apple admits!
Given the problem with this newsgroup, _is_ that the apologists exist...
To spare the few adults on this newsgroup further childish indignity...
o This is my last response to Alan Baker (aka Sandman), on this topic.
--
The problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that the apologists exist.
> He is so afraid of this that his only course of action is to SNIP OUT his
> lies in every single post, and try to ignore them outright. Go ahead little
> liar, snip it again and run away with your tail between your legs, it is
> after all what you do best. Far be it from you to actually acknowledge the
> lie you told and admit to it. No, snip little boy, snip and run!
Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),
The problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that you apologists exist.
o This thread is PERFECT for the permanent archives - to prove that point.
A. Facts that Apple published themselves, were provided.
B. To date, 34 of 36 responses were apologists' refuting the facts
(or me explaining, patiently to those apologists, the facts)
C. And yet, *all the apologists are fantastically _immune_ to those facts*
(they literally brazenly deny Apple said what Apple clearly said!)
To wit, we come to this utter moron, of the same low IQ as Alan Baker.
o I estimate Alan Baker's IQ of around 40, maybe as high as 50 (IMHO).
Which is likely why he can't comprehend what a double quote indicates...
o Nor what the word "verbatim" even means (especially with double quotes).
Sandman _is_ most likely a sock of Alan Baker, as far as I can tell.
o As with Alan Baker, he incessantly claim all facts are "lies by liars".
Hence, to spare adults the indignity of me having to drop to his level
o This is my last post to Sandman on this topic.
For the very few actual adults on this newsgroup...
1. The topic was EXACTLY what it said (verbatim) in the Subject.
2. The description was EXACTLY as said (verbatim) in the OP.
3. Sandman (aka a sock of Alan Baker) refutes what Apple said.
If this "Sandman" isn't perchance, Alan Baker, they act the same:
a. They both call all facts "lies by liars" (even verbatim posts!)
b. They both hate when we use proper Usenet quoting netiquette
c. They both fail to comprehend Apple said exactly what Apple said:
o *Don't close your MacBook, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro with a cover over the camera*
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148>
Where the original post contained (verbatim) quotes from this cite:
o *Don't close your MacBook, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro with a cover over the camera*
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148>
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/10/apple-macbook-camera-cover-warning/>
There are 36 responses by 9 authors, only one of which is from an adult:
o *Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>
Other than the OP, the only posts on an adult level are these two:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8>
o Ant
"Weird. No problems with old MBPs like from 2012 and 2008.
Must be the newer models."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8/mICgDVwTDQAJ>
o My adult response to Ant
"In _this_ situation, Ant, Apple says that if you use a cover,
then you can easily break the screen, as the tolerances are rather
tight (and it has happened, apparently, enough to have caused Apple
to issue the warning).
So simply consider this a PSA, so that you know how to not have
it happen."
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/K9dMw2t7Cl8/DSmIvCAXDQAJ>
The rest of the responses prove why this newsgroup is what it is:
o Alan Baker, Sandman, John McWilliams, John Dee, Wolffan, Otto Pylot
While all those are Type III apologists (IQ of around 40 or 50, IMHO)...
o Our resident Type I apologist, nospam, weighted in claiming,
essentially, he's sick and tired of seeing accurate & well cited
facts about Apple products, saying (correctly so), "it never ends".
Good.
o When people are claiming the facts will never end... I'm doing my job.
While the Type III apologists claimed that Apple didn't say what Apple
clearly said (all of which was verbatim and they _still_ claimed Apple
didn't say what Apple said)...
The _best_ that Sandman (aka Alan Baker) can come up with is that in my one
reply to the one adult (Ant), I didn't bother to quote verbatim since I was
speaking with an adult, so I paraphrased what Apple said (where Ant well
knew I was doing that since ALL ADULTS would know I didn't state it was
verbatim - it was a summary to Ant, as an adult to an adult).
That one sentence, of that one-line summary, caused Sandman (aka Alan
Baker) to foment upon us a tirade of "liar liar pants on fire" posts,
all simply because Sandman (aka Alan Baker) is too stupid to understand
what Ant (and all adults) instantly knew was a paraphrase (since it had no
quotes, and it wasn't stated to be a quote, which, for God's sake, I can't
believe I have to EXPLAIN on this newsgroup).
Sandman (aka Alan Baker) is an utter moron who is so stupid he can't fathom
what the word "verbatim" means (it wasn't in that post to Ant as it wasn't
needed!) nor, what a double quote means (it wasn't in that post to Ant)...
Jesus Christ... can you believe how _loooooow_ the IQ of Sandman/Baker is?
Having worked in the Silicon Valley for decades, I have never run into
people like Sandman/Baker _that_ incredibly incomprehensibly stupid.
I can deal with nospam, since he's actually not as stupid as what he writes
shows him to be (nospam is simply a dutiful parrot of MARKETING mantra).
But I just can't stoop down to the low-IQ level of Sandman/Baker.
o I just can't.
*Clearly, these apologists are what has ruined this newsgroup, for years.*
See also:
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/7IqoAq8fURo>
And...
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/_50ZqBhcbYs>
And, in relation to apologists claiming all facts are lies by liars:
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>
And, in relation to apologists brazenly denying even what Apple admits!
o *What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>
etc.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>
Given the problem with this newsgroup, _is_ that the apologists exist...
To spare the few adults on this newsgroup further childish indignity...
o This is my last response to Alan Baker (aka Sandman), on this topic.
--
The problem with Apple newsgroups is simply that the apologists exist.
Alan Baker
Jul 14, 2020, 2:22:04 PM7/14/20
to
On 2020-07-14 11:12 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2020 11:32:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> He is so afraid of this that his only course of action is to SNIP OUT his
>> lies in every single post, and try to ignore them outright. Go ahead little
>> liar, snip it again and run away with your tail between your legs, it is
>> after all what you do best. Far be it from you to actually acknowledge the
>> lie you told and admit to it. No, snip little boy, snip and run!
>
> Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),
>
Oh, look!
> On 14 Jul 2020 11:32:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:
>
>> He is so afraid of this that his only course of action is to SNIP OUT his
>> lies in every single post, and try to ignore them outright. Go ahead little
>> liar, snip it again and run away with your tail between your legs, it is
>> after all what you do best. Far be it from you to actually acknowledge the
>> lie you told and admit to it. No, snip little boy, snip and run!
>
> Hi Alan Baker (aka Sandman),
>
Another lie!
Arlen Holder
Jul 15, 2020, 1:06:41 PM7/15/20
to
On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
> the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
> the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).
>
> It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
> misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
> continues to argue both these fallacies.
Hi Frank Slootweg,
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.
We know each other well where's no love lost between us, where I just want
to let you (& others) know I've _studied_ these unprepossessing apologists.
Their strange (but consistently repetitive) actions piqued my interest:
a. They _always_ take the case of Apple (as you see nospam doing now)
b. They brazenly deny what Apple does (or blame M$ for what Apple does)
c. They fabricate functionality they _wish_ Apple products have
While there are three major types of apologists, what's consistent about
their arguments is that they are so used to being among their own cultists,
that they have absolutely no adult strategies to deal with actual facts.
For example, nospam will literally change your words in his quote of what
you said, and then he'll respond to _those_ changed words. He's done this
so many hundreds of times that I have an entire thread of when he's done
that - simply because he has no skill for handling actual facts.
For another example, all the apologists, will simply deny facts outright,
where they do it differently depending on the type. For example, Type I
apologists (nospam being the canonical member) will claim "he's told you
already", or just "nope" without calling all facts "lies by liars" which
the Type III apologists do. He'll deny any fact he simply doesn't like.
And yet, unlike the other types of apologists, nospam actually _knows_ the
facts, which is why his credibility is rather high for an apologists at
about the same result as a dumb random coin toss outcome.
The three types are clearly distinct, even as they're all strange people:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) will always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
o Type II (e.g., sms) are normal people who simply aren't factual minded.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are well into Quadrant 1 of Dunning-Kruger.
Notice what sets apart nospam from the other two despicable types is that
he doesn't believe a word he, himself, says, whereas the other two types
literally believe what they say (where the Type II are simply ignorant
people who aren't used to facts, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ thinks the
Qualcomm royalties went down per iPhone!)... but it's the Type III (e.g.,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) who are the most
petrifying since they truly believe the strange things they claim.
By way of contrast with nospam, the Type III apologist are clearly of very
low IQ, whereas nospam has only a slightly below normal IQ (AFAICT), where
the fact he _understands_ the facts puts him in the normal range but the
fact he has no methods to deal with facts shows he's below normal in IQ.
The Type II apologists, as far as I can tell, have a normal range of IQ
(e.g., Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, Savageduck, Steve Scharf, et al.),
where their flaws are simply that facts aren't something they're used to
dealing with (it's likely zero of them were science or engineering majors,
for example, but more likely they couldn't handle any factually rigorous
field of endeavor, e.g., Steve is the mayor of Cupertino, which doesn't
require factual skills - but which requires political acumen instead).
One thing that distinguishes apologists is their purpose on denying facts:
o Type I simply defend Apple and blame Microsoft/Google for Apple faults.
o Type II simply believe the MARKETING but otherwise are normal people.
o Type III are viscous hate-filled horribly unprepossessing bullies.
One trait both Type I and Type III apologists share is that they're easily
shown to be sadistic, which has been proven many times, where they
sadistically send innocent users on wild-goose chases simply because they
incessantly claim functionality that simply never existed.
It's shocking, actually, how horribly sadistic nospam is when he does that.
o He's a completely unprepossessing human being - devoid of purposefully
helpful advice - as he NEVER has any other goal but to push Apple's
marketing message on Usenet. He's NEVER purposefully helpful. Ever.
In short, nospam is, IMHO, a truly despicable human being, devoid of
purposefully helpful intent, honor, credibility, or compassion.
But he's not stupid! He's of only slightly below normal intelligence.
o He is the way he is because he _chooses_ to be despicable.
Unlike Type III and Type II apologists, who don't know any better.
o This nospam actually _knows_ he's despicable; he simply doesn't care.
In summary, all of the apologists deny what normal people know to be facts.
o Type I know the facts, but they'll support Apple at all costs
Hence, most Usenet threads they participate in are _filled_ with their
garbage, such that some threads are 99% them simply denying what nobody
normal would ever deny.
IMHO, these despicable people like nospam are what ruins Usenet.
o They don't have a single purposefully helpful bone in their bodies.
Happened just this week, for example, fully documented here:
--
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.
> It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
> the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
> the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).
>
> It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
> misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
> continues to argue both these fallacies.
Hi Frank Slootweg,
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.
We know each other well where's no love lost between us, where I just want
to let you (& others) know I've _studied_ these unprepossessing apologists.
Their strange (but consistently repetitive) actions piqued my interest:
a. They _always_ take the case of Apple (as you see nospam doing now)
b. They brazenly deny what Apple does (or blame M$ for what Apple does)
c. They fabricate functionality they _wish_ Apple products have
While there are three major types of apologists, what's consistent about
their arguments is that they are so used to being among their own cultists,
that they have absolutely no adult strategies to deal with actual facts.
For example, nospam will literally change your words in his quote of what
you said, and then he'll respond to _those_ changed words. He's done this
so many hundreds of times that I have an entire thread of when he's done
that - simply because he has no skill for handling actual facts.
For another example, all the apologists, will simply deny facts outright,
where they do it differently depending on the type. For example, Type I
apologists (nospam being the canonical member) will claim "he's told you
already", or just "nope" without calling all facts "lies by liars" which
the Type III apologists do. He'll deny any fact he simply doesn't like.
And yet, unlike the other types of apologists, nospam actually _knows_ the
facts, which is why his credibility is rather high for an apologists at
about the same result as a dumb random coin toss outcome.
The three types are clearly distinct, even as they're all strange people:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) will always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
o Type II (e.g., sms) are normal people who simply aren't factual minded.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are well into Quadrant 1 of Dunning-Kruger.
Notice what sets apart nospam from the other two despicable types is that
he doesn't believe a word he, himself, says, whereas the other two types
literally believe what they say (where the Type II are simply ignorant
people who aren't used to facts, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ thinks the
Qualcomm royalties went down per iPhone!)... but it's the Type III (e.g.,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) who are the most
petrifying since they truly believe the strange things they claim.
By way of contrast with nospam, the Type III apologist are clearly of very
low IQ, whereas nospam has only a slightly below normal IQ (AFAICT), where
the fact he _understands_ the facts puts him in the normal range but the
fact he has no methods to deal with facts shows he's below normal in IQ.
The Type II apologists, as far as I can tell, have a normal range of IQ
(e.g., Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, Savageduck, Steve Scharf, et al.),
where their flaws are simply that facts aren't something they're used to
dealing with (it's likely zero of them were science or engineering majors,
for example, but more likely they couldn't handle any factually rigorous
field of endeavor, e.g., Steve is the mayor of Cupertino, which doesn't
require factual skills - but which requires political acumen instead).
One thing that distinguishes apologists is their purpose on denying facts:
o Type I simply defend Apple and blame Microsoft/Google for Apple faults.
o Type II simply believe the MARKETING but otherwise are normal people.
o Type III are viscous hate-filled horribly unprepossessing bullies.
One trait both Type I and Type III apologists share is that they're easily
shown to be sadistic, which has been proven many times, where they
sadistically send innocent users on wild-goose chases simply because they
incessantly claim functionality that simply never existed.
It's shocking, actually, how horribly sadistic nospam is when he does that.
o He's a completely unprepossessing human being - devoid of purposefully
helpful advice - as he NEVER has any other goal but to push Apple's
marketing message on Usenet. He's NEVER purposefully helpful. Ever.
In short, nospam is, IMHO, a truly despicable human being, devoid of
purposefully helpful intent, honor, credibility, or compassion.
But he's not stupid! He's of only slightly below normal intelligence.
o He is the way he is because he _chooses_ to be despicable.
Unlike Type III and Type II apologists, who don't know any better.
o This nospam actually _knows_ he's despicable; he simply doesn't care.
In summary, all of the apologists deny what normal people know to be facts.
o Type I know the facts, but they'll support Apple at all costs
Hence, most Usenet threads they participate in are _filled_ with their
garbage, such that some threads are 99% them simply denying what nobody
normal would ever deny.
IMHO, these despicable people like nospam are what ruins Usenet.
o They don't have a single purposefully helpful bone in their bodies.
Happened just this week, for example, fully documented here:
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mQsBECSbICw>
--
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.
Alan Baker
Jul 15, 2020, 1:12:22 PM7/15/20
to
On 2020-07-15 10:06 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
>> the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
>> the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).
>>
>> It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
>> misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
>> continues to argue both these fallacies.
>
> Hi Frank Slootweg...
> On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
>> the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
>> the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).
>>
>> It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
>> misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
>> continues to argue both these fallacies.
>
Why?
Arlen Holder
Jul 19, 2020, 10:30:29 AM7/19/20
to
UPDATE:
Regarding this informative fact-based thread, from just moments ago...
o *How to submit your claim in Apple's half a billion dollar secret throtting settlement*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wm-8YUKl5M0>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:06:25 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>> Ant:
>>> Why isn't on Apple's web site to check and send us payments like in the
>>> past? Is that web site legit?
>> Your Name:
>> No. It's a crap website posted by a brainless troll ... avoid BOTH of them!!!
> nospam:
> nonsense. it's the official website for the settlement.
*Why do apologists brazenly deny even the most easily verified facts?*
Given I've studied Apple posters for years, I _love_ that I can pretty much
accurately characterize every single one of you, before you even post, as
to almost exactly _what_ you'll claim given any specific fact about Apple.
o Type I apologists, like nospam, surprisingly actually _know_ the facts.
o Type II apologists, like Steve Scharf, never seem to check their facts.
o Type III apologists, like Your Name, are fantastically ignorant of facts.
In this case, Ant, who is not an apologist, asked a valid question.
o nospam, who is an apologist that knows the answer, clarified the answer.
And yet, Your Name, who is probably of an IQ of, oh, 40 or 50 like most (if
not all) of the Type III apologists, refutes facts that were _cited_ in the
opening post.
While none of the apologists seem to care about their lack of credibility,
in the case of Type III apologists like Your Name is, EVERY post from them
proves they lack the basic adult capacity of rational cognitive thought.
These Type III apologists prove my point, with every post, that they simply
refute ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they don't like about Apple products.
Why?
o I don't know why.
I suspect these apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much that the only way
they can maintain their self-fabricated imaginary belief system, is to deny
(or filter out) any and all facts about what Apple actually does.
--
Even verbatim cites from reliable sources these apologists brazenly refute.
Regarding this informative fact-based thread, from just moments ago...
o *How to submit your claim in Apple's half a billion dollar secret throtting settlement*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wm-8YUKl5M0>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:06:25 -0400, nospam wrote:
>>> Ant:
>>> Why isn't on Apple's web site to check and send us payments like in the
>>> past? Is that web site legit?
>> Your Name:
>> No. It's a crap website posted by a brainless troll ... avoid BOTH of them!!!
> nospam:
> nonsense. it's the official website for the settlement.
*Why do apologists brazenly deny even the most easily verified facts?*
Given I've studied Apple posters for years, I _love_ that I can pretty much
accurately characterize every single one of you, before you even post, as
to almost exactly _what_ you'll claim given any specific fact about Apple.
o Type I apologists, like nospam, surprisingly actually _know_ the facts.
o Type II apologists, like Steve Scharf, never seem to check their facts.
o Type III apologists, like Your Name, are fantastically ignorant of facts.
In this case, Ant, who is not an apologist, asked a valid question.
o nospam, who is an apologist that knows the answer, clarified the answer.
And yet, Your Name, who is probably of an IQ of, oh, 40 or 50 like most (if
not all) of the Type III apologists, refutes facts that were _cited_ in the
opening post.
While none of the apologists seem to care about their lack of credibility,
in the case of Type III apologists like Your Name is, EVERY post from them
proves they lack the basic adult capacity of rational cognitive thought.
These Type III apologists prove my point, with every post, that they simply
refute ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they don't like about Apple products.
Why?
o I don't know why.
I suspect these apologists _hate_ what Apple is so much that the only way
they can maintain their self-fabricated imaginary belief system, is to deny
(or filter out) any and all facts about what Apple actually does.
--
Even verbatim cites from reliable sources these apologists brazenly refute.
Arlen Holder
Dec 10, 2020, 1:07:27 AM12/10/20
to
More factual documentation on the "lies by liars" concept
o Proof of this, the favorite tactic, of Apple apologists
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:59:37 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> Yes, it's unfortunate that there is so much vitriol rampant on
> newsgroups, not just this one. I suspect it mirrors human nature of
> being violent and aggressive toward people who are not like us.
Hi badgolferman,
Notice how neither you nor I turned into "instant child" when confronted
with the facts, even as both of us were claiming, initially, different
things?
You are an adult; so we can agree on facts, and we can perhaps still
disagree, like adults, on assessments of those facts (or agree on them).
The apologists are not capaple of doing what we just did in this thread
o They turn into instant (often hateful) children when confronted with fact
You may need to accept I've _studied_ these strange apologists. For years.
o And I've been on the adult OS newsgroups. For years.
In my humblest of opinions, apologists alone are what ruin this newsgroup.
o On the Android newsgroups, nobody is a die-hard Google flag waver.
o On the Windows newsgroups, nobody is a Microsoft cultist excuser.
o On the Linux newsgroups, nobody backs up RedHat to the death.
There's nobody like these apologists on the adult OS newsgroups.
o Type I (nospam)
o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.)
It's only on Apple newsgroups that these strange apologists exist.
o The apologists alone are why adult conversations are rare on this ng.
> As for scripts, I'm not proficient in programming language so I don't
> have the knowledge or ability for that. The monthly statistics are a
> feature of my desktop news client Xananews.
Notice how neither you nor I turned into "instant child" when confronted
with the facts, even as both of us were claiming, initially, different
things?
Thank you for clarifying, where my main worry was that your scripts might
be bad, but it turns out it was simply an anomaly of the newsreader itself.
It was good this dialog happened because it proved that the adults on this
newsgroup (the very few that exist, e.g., Ant, JF Mezei, and you are just
about it, off the top of my head) can carry on a conversation that puts the
apologists to shame.
If you just look at how Lewis and nospam are treating "Your Name" in Chris'
recent thread, they prove me right, where each apologist handles facts
differently but consistently so:
o App development, by Chris
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/MShq86Qpn_Y>
o Type I (nospam) take an Apple MARKETING view on everything.
For example, nospam insists that coding for iOS apps is zero dollars
even in light of the fact Your Name easily showed that wasn't true.
o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
These are just normal people, IMHO, who are out of their league
when it comes to facts; they can't handle details.
o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.)
These are the ones which petrify me, as Lewis, who couldn't comprehend
a single assessment by Your Name, insisted that every assessment he
himself couldn't comprehend, was a "lie by liars", just like Alan Baker
and Jolly Roger do.
Remember, for example, that Alan Baker couldn't believe that Apple was
forced to publish their criminal fine they paid, and yet Alan Baker
insisted that was a "lie by liars"?
o Apple forced to publicly admit the $25M crime of intentionally lowering iPhone lifespan
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>
Everything these Type III apologists themselves can't understand, is, to
them, a "lie by liars".
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/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/nVzWBU2otC4>
In terms of your "newsgroup statistics" report, the same thing happened
when Alan Baker proclaimed I was using NewsTap, when he saw that in the
header.
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
This is super instructive, as it's what makes these apologists Dunning
Kruger Quadrant 1, and far to the left of that, in terms of their ability
to make assessments of their own skillsets.
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/fyL1cQUVCp0>
Alan Baker was so sure of his ability to assess my headers that he loudly
and repeatedly proclaimed it was a "lie by liars" that I didn't use NewsTap
when I told him it's just a meaningless string that I can change at will.
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mQsBECSbICw>
I repeatedly told Alan Baker that information, and I repeatedly pointed to
the actual headers I used, and I changed the headers right in front of him,
but he _still_ loudly proclaimed that he knew how to interpret headers, and
whatever it said in the headers _must_ be correct, therefore it was a lie
by me that I didn't use NewsTap.
He was so _proud_ of himself, like a cat bringing a dead bird home, that he
had finally caught me in a "lie", that he posted this "lie by liars" to
numerous threads (it started on the Android newsgroups).
What's interesting is _all_ these Type III apologists act this way:
o Lewis, Jolly Roger, Tim Streater, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.
1. Anything they, themselves, can't comprehend, must be a "lie by liars".
2. They're completely sure of their ability to "assess" that fact.
3. And yet, they are always dead wrong as a result.
If they weren't so insistent that everything they can't comprehend is a
"lie by liars" it wouldn't be so bad - but what makes it even worse is this
same cast of characters are _always_ the ones throwing the vitriolic
hatred.
You saw both Jolly Roger & Lewis do it in that thread by Chris.
o It happens all the time these TYPE III apologists throw hateful vitriol.
These apologists, particularly the Type I and Type III, are who ruin Apple
newsgroups (IMHO), and I've posted plenty of factual evidence to back up
that assessment.
--
If the apologists simply didn't exist - Apple newsgroups would be civil.
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 22:35:39 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> Well Arlen, I think you can rest easy tonight knowing the problem isn't
> in your system. After opening the newsreader again your Author name
> has corrected itself. See screenshot. https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY
>
> Maybe it's the font I use or the encoding, but messages from you that
> haven't been read have the extra spaces in your name, whereas messages
> that have been read and the newsreader restarted show up properly. It
> looks like my newsreader client has a minor bug although it only shows
> up with your name. Maybe it's allergic to you or something.
>
> In any case it doesn't bother me and the other features of the client
> make up for it so it will remain the same. Just ignore the monthly
> statistics or know that I didn't read your messages which have the
> extra spaces.
Hi badgolferman,
I think this conversation proves what I've always thought about the folks
on this newsgroup who are not apologists (e.g., you, Ant, JF Mezei, et al.)
o Before reading them: <https://ibb.co/YdWLjkH>
o After reading them: <https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY>
I love facts.
o Anytime someone wants to discuss facts, I'm all for it.
Notice how this discussion ensued, which was civil, and adult throughout:
1. You posted, out of the goodness of your heart, the periodic statistics.
2. I looked at them & I _comprehended_ them, without denying them outright
3. I suggested to you perhaps there was a bug on your side, in your scripts
Note both of us posted with purposefully helpful intent
o Out of the goodness of our hearts.
Then you took the energy to check the facts & to provide that check
o Which I took the energy to check, and agree.
Neither of us called the other a "liar"...
o Both of us have long ago established our credibility.
So you trusted that what I said I believed I saw based on my side
o And I trusted that what you said you believed you saw on your side
We simply agreed on the facts as we saw them, and pondered the "why".
o Both of us resolved to figure out why there was a contradiction
Both of us ran additional tests, where you doublechecked what you saw
o And I doublechecked what I sent (by changing what I easily could change)
Handily, you beat me to the solution, which I very much appreciate
o (As you saved me a lot of time trying to debug on my side)
In summary, _that_ is how an adult conversation proceeds on other ngs
o I'm sure we both wish dialog like that could proceed more often here
In summary, don't worry about it, as I'm not worried for me; I was simply
worried that your scripts had a problem, which it turned out, they didn't.
--
See also:
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups -
Type I (nospam)
Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et
al.)
o Proof of this, the favorite tactic, of Apple apologists
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:59:37 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> Yes, it's unfortunate that there is so much vitriol rampant on
> newsgroups, not just this one. I suspect it mirrors human nature of
> being violent and aggressive toward people who are not like us.
Hi badgolferman,
Notice how neither you nor I turned into "instant child" when confronted
with the facts, even as both of us were claiming, initially, different
things?
You are an adult; so we can agree on facts, and we can perhaps still
disagree, like adults, on assessments of those facts (or agree on them).
The apologists are not capaple of doing what we just did in this thread
o They turn into instant (often hateful) children when confronted with fact
You may need to accept I've _studied_ these strange apologists. For years.
o And I've been on the adult OS newsgroups. For years.
In my humblest of opinions, apologists alone are what ruin this newsgroup.
o On the Android newsgroups, nobody is a die-hard Google flag waver.
o On the Windows newsgroups, nobody is a Microsoft cultist excuser.
o On the Linux newsgroups, nobody backs up RedHat to the death.
There's nobody like these apologists on the adult OS newsgroups.
o Type I (nospam)
o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.)
It's only on Apple newsgroups that these strange apologists exist.
o The apologists alone are why adult conversations are rare on this ng.
> As for scripts, I'm not proficient in programming language so I don't
> have the knowledge or ability for that. The monthly statistics are a
> feature of my desktop news client Xananews.
Notice how neither you nor I turned into "instant child" when confronted
with the facts, even as both of us were claiming, initially, different
things?
Thank you for clarifying, where my main worry was that your scripts might
be bad, but it turns out it was simply an anomaly of the newsreader itself.
It was good this dialog happened because it proved that the adults on this
newsgroup (the very few that exist, e.g., Ant, JF Mezei, and you are just
about it, off the top of my head) can carry on a conversation that puts the
apologists to shame.
If you just look at how Lewis and nospam are treating "Your Name" in Chris'
recent thread, they prove me right, where each apologist handles facts
differently but consistently so:
o App development, by Chris
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/MShq86Qpn_Y>
o Type I (nospam) take an Apple MARKETING view on everything.
For example, nospam insists that coding for iOS apps is zero dollars
even in light of the fact Your Name easily showed that wasn't true.
o Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
These are just normal people, IMHO, who are out of their league
when it comes to facts; they can't handle details.
o Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.)
These are the ones which petrify me, as Lewis, who couldn't comprehend
a single assessment by Your Name, insisted that every assessment he
himself couldn't comprehend, was a "lie by liars", just like Alan Baker
and Jolly Roger do.
Remember, for example, that Alan Baker couldn't believe that Apple was
forced to publish their criminal fine they paid, and yet Alan Baker
insisted that was a "lie by liars"?
o Apple forced to publicly admit the $25M crime of intentionally lowering iPhone lifespan
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>
Everything these Type III apologists themselves can't understand, is, to
them, a "lie by liars".
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/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/nVzWBU2otC4>
In terms of your "newsgroup statistics" report, the same thing happened
when Alan Baker proclaimed I was using NewsTap, when he saw that in the
header.
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
This is super instructive, as it's what makes these apologists Dunning
Kruger Quadrant 1, and far to the left of that, in terms of their ability
to make assessments of their own skillsets.
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/fyL1cQUVCp0>
Alan Baker was so sure of his ability to assess my headers that he loudly
and repeatedly proclaimed it was a "lie by liars" that I didn't use NewsTap
when I told him it's just a meaningless string that I can change at will.
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mQsBECSbICw>
I repeatedly told Alan Baker that information, and I repeatedly pointed to
the actual headers I used, and I changed the headers right in front of him,
but he _still_ loudly proclaimed that he knew how to interpret headers, and
whatever it said in the headers _must_ be correct, therefore it was a lie
by me that I didn't use NewsTap.
He was so _proud_ of himself, like a cat bringing a dead bird home, that he
had finally caught me in a "lie", that he posted this "lie by liars" to
numerous threads (it started on the Android newsgroups).
What's interesting is _all_ these Type III apologists act this way:
o Lewis, Jolly Roger, Tim Streater, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et al.
1. Anything they, themselves, can't comprehend, must be a "lie by liars".
2. They're completely sure of their ability to "assess" that fact.
3. And yet, they are always dead wrong as a result.
If they weren't so insistent that everything they can't comprehend is a
"lie by liars" it wouldn't be so bad - but what makes it even worse is this
same cast of characters are _always_ the ones throwing the vitriolic
hatred.
You saw both Jolly Roger & Lewis do it in that thread by Chris.
o It happens all the time these TYPE III apologists throw hateful vitriol.
These apologists, particularly the Type I and Type III, are who ruin Apple
newsgroups (IMHO), and I've posted plenty of factual evidence to back up
that assessment.
--
If the apologists simply didn't exist - Apple newsgroups would be civil.
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 22:35:39 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
> Well Arlen, I think you can rest easy tonight knowing the problem isn't
> in your system. After opening the newsreader again your Author name
> has corrected itself. See screenshot. https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY
>
> Maybe it's the font I use or the encoding, but messages from you that
> haven't been read have the extra spaces in your name, whereas messages
> that have been read and the newsreader restarted show up properly. It
> looks like my newsreader client has a minor bug although it only shows
> up with your name. Maybe it's allergic to you or something.
>
> In any case it doesn't bother me and the other features of the client
> make up for it so it will remain the same. Just ignore the monthly
> statistics or know that I didn't read your messages which have the
> extra spaces.
Hi badgolferman,
I think this conversation proves what I've always thought about the folks
on this newsgroup who are not apologists (e.g., you, Ant, JF Mezei, et al.)
o Before reading them: <https://ibb.co/YdWLjkH>
o After reading them: <https://ibb.co/sbMtTfY>
I love facts.
o Anytime someone wants to discuss facts, I'm all for it.
Notice how this discussion ensued, which was civil, and adult throughout:
1. You posted, out of the goodness of your heart, the periodic statistics.
2. I looked at them & I _comprehended_ them, without denying them outright
3. I suggested to you perhaps there was a bug on your side, in your scripts
Note both of us posted with purposefully helpful intent
o Out of the goodness of our hearts.
Then you took the energy to check the facts & to provide that check
o Which I took the energy to check, and agree.
Neither of us called the other a "liar"...
o Both of us have long ago established our credibility.
So you trusted that what I said I believed I saw based on my side
o And I trusted that what you said you believed you saw on your side
We simply agreed on the facts as we saw them, and pondered the "why".
o Both of us resolved to figure out why there was a contradiction
Both of us ran additional tests, where you doublechecked what you saw
o And I doublechecked what I sent (by changing what I easily could change)
Handily, you beat me to the solution, which I very much appreciate
o (As you saved me a lot of time trying to debug on my side)
In summary, _that_ is how an adult conversation proceeds on other ngs
o I'm sure we both wish dialog like that could proceed more often here
In summary, don't worry about it, as I'm not worried for me; I was simply
worried that your scripts had a problem, which it turned out, they didn't.
--
See also:
o Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups -
is simply that apologists exist
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/mQsBECSbICw/m/lgI46TXtBwAJ>
Type I (nospam)
Type II (sms, Alan Browne, Chris, Savageduck, et al.)
Type III (Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Hemidactylus, et
al.)
0 new messages